c^^ 


^^ 


^t  tV^c  ^olagiral  ^ 


^^, 


f^. 


^> 


PRINCETON,  N.  J. 


^ 


Division 


.BS..232 

;g-b22 


tno 


^^y  > 


The  International 

Theological  Library 


EDITORS'  PREFACE 

THEOLOGY  has  made  great  and  rapid  advances 
in  recent  years.  New  lines  of  investigation  have 
been  opened  up,  fresh  light  has  been  cast  upon 
many  subjects  of  the  deepest  interest,  and  the  historical 
method  has  been  applied  with  important  results.  This 
has  prepared  the  way  for  a  Library  of  Theological 
Science,  and  has  created  the  demand  for  it.  It  has  also 
made  it  at  once  opportune  and  practicable  now  to  se- 
cure the  services  of  specialists  in  the  different  depart- 
ments of  Theology,  and  to  associate  them  in  an  enter- 
prise which  will  furnish  a  record  of  Theological 
inquiry  up  to  date. 

This  Library  is  designed  to  cover  the  whole  field  of 
Christian  Theology.  Each  volume  is  to  be  complete 
in  itself,  while,  at  the  same  time,  it  will  form  part  of  a 
carefully  planned  whole.  One  of  the  Editors  is  to  pre- 
pare a  volume  of  Theological  Encyclopsedia  which  will 
give  the  history  and  literature  of  each  department,  as 
well  as  of  Theology  as  a  whole. 


The  International  Theological  Library 

The  Library  is  intended  to  font  a  series  of  Text- 
Books  for  Students  of  Theology. 

The  Authors,  therefore,  aim  at  conciseness  and  com- 
pactness of  statement.  At  the  same  time,  the}^  have  in 
view  that  large  and  increasing  class  of  students,  in  other 
departments  of  inquiry,  who  desire  to  have  a  systematic 
and  thorough  exposition  of  Theological  Science.  Tech- 
nical matters  will  therefore  be  thrown  into  the  form  of 
notes,  and  the  text  will  be  made  as  readable  and  attract- 
ive as  possible. 

The  Library  is  international  and  interconfessional.  It 
will  be  conducted  in  a  catholic  spirit,  and  in  the 
interests  of  Theoloofv  as  a  science. 

Its  aim  will  be  to  give  full  and  impartial  statements 
both  of  the  results  of  Theological  Science  and  of  the 
questions  which  are  still  at  issue  in  the  different 
departments. 

The  Authors  will  be  scholars  of  recognized  reputation 
in  the  several  branches  of  study  assigned  to  them.  They 
will  be  associated  with  each  other  and  with  the  Editors 
in  the  effort  to  provide  a  series  of  volumes  Avhich  may 
adequately  represent  the  present  condition  of  investi- 
gation, and  indicate  the  way  for  further  progress. 

Charles  A.  Briggs 
Stewart  D.  F.  Salmond 


The  International  Theological  Library 


ARRANGEMENT  OF  VOLUMES  AND  AUTHORS 

THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOP>iEDIA.  By  Charles  A.  Driggs,  D.D.,  D.Litt., 
Graduate  Professor  of  Theologfical  Encyclopasdia  and  Symbolics,  Union 
Theologrical  Seminary,  New  York. 

AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LITERATURE  OF  THE  OLD  TESTA- 
MENT. By  S.  R.  Driver,  D.D.,  D.Litt.,  Regius  Professor  of  Hebrew 
and  Canon  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford.  \_Reviscd  and  Enlarged  Edition. 

CANON  AND  TEXT  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.  By  FraxCIS 
Crawford  Burkitt,  jNI.A.,  Norrisian  Professor  of  Divinity,  University 
of  Cambridge. 

OLD  TESTAMENT  HISTORY.  By  Henry  Preserved  Smith,  D.D., 
sometime  Professor  of  Biblical  History,  Amherst  College,  Mass. 

{Now  Ready. 

CONTEMPORARY     HISTORY     OF    THE     OLD     TESTAMENT.      By 

Francis  Browx,  D.D.,  LL. D.,  D.Litt.,  Professor  of  Hebrew,  Union 
Theological  Seminary,  New  York. 

THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.  By  A.  B.  Davidson, 
D.D.,  LL, D.,  sometime  Professor  of  Hebrew,  New  College,  Edinburgh. 

\_N'ow  Ready, 

AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LITERATURE  OFTHE  NEW  TESTA- 
MENT. By  Rev.  James  Moffatt,  B.D.,  Minister  United  Free  Church, 
Dundonald,  Scotland. 

CANON  AND  TEXT  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  By  Caspar  Rene 
Gregory,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Professor  of  New  Testament  Exegesis  in  the 
University  of  Leipzig.  \^Now  Ready. 

THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.  By  William  Sand  ay,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Lady 
Margaret  Professor  of  Divinity  and  Canon  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford. 

A   HISTORY    OF  CHRISTIANITY    IN    THE    APOSTOLIC    AGE.      By 

Arthur  C,  McGiffert,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Church  History,  Union  Theo- 
logical   Seminary,  New  York.  [A'lS'w  Ready. 

CONTEMPORARY     HISTORY     OF    THE     NEW    TESTAMENT.      By 

Frank  C.  Porter,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Biblical  Theology,  Yale  University, 
New  Haven,    Conn. 

THEOLOGY  OFTHE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  By  George  B.  Stevens, 
D.D.,  sometime  Professor  of  Systematic  Theology,  Yale  University,  New 
Haven,  Conn.  \N(ni>  Ready. 

BIBLICAL  ARCHiCOLOGY.  By  G.  BUCHANAN  Gray,  D.D.,  Professor 
of  Hebrew,  ]Mansfield  College,  Oxford. 

THE  ANCIENT  CATHOLIC  CHURCH.  By  Robert  Rainy,  D.D., 
LL.D.,  sometime  Principal  of  New  College,  Edinburgh.  [A't^zc'  Ready. 

THE  EARLY  LATIN  CHURCH.  By  Charles  BiGG,  D.D,,  Regius  Pro- 
fessor  of  Church  History,  University  of  Oxford. 


The  International  Theological  Library 


THE  LATER  LATIN  CHURCH.  By  E.  W.  Watsox,  M.A.,  Trofessor 
of  Church  History,  King's  College,  London. 

THE  GREEK  AND  ORI  ENTAL  CH  U  RCH  ES.  By  W.  F.  Adeney,D.D., 
Principal  of  Independent  College,  Manchester. 

THE  REFORMATION.  By  T.  :\I.  LiNDSAY,  D.D.,  Principal  of  the  United 
Free  College,  Glasgow.  [.?  vols.     Now  Ready. 

SYMBOLICS.  By  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  D.Litt.,  Graduate  Professor 
of  Theolog-ical  Encyclopaedia  and  Symbolics,  Union  Theolog-ical  Seminary, 
New  York. 

HISTORY  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.  By  G.  P.  FiSHER,  D.D., 
LL.  D. ,  Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History,  Yale  University,  New  Haven, 
Conn.  \_Reviscd  and  Enlarged  Edition. 

CHRISTIAN  INSTITUTIONS.  By  A.  V.  G.  Allex,  D.D.,  Professor  of 
Ecclesiastical  History,  Protestant  Episcopal  Divinity  School,  Cambridge, 
Mass.  \No7v  Ready. 

PHILOSOPHY  OF  RELIGION.  By  Robert  Flixt,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  some- 
time Professor  of  Divinity  in  the  University  of  Edinburgh. 

THE  HISTORY  OF  RELIGIONS.    By  GEORGE  F.  MooRE,  D.D.,  LL.D., 

Professor  in  Harvard  University. 

APOLOGETICS.  By  A.  B.  Bruce,  D.D.,  sometime  Professor  of  New 
Testament  Exegesis,  Free  Church  College,  Glasgow. 

\_Revised and  Enlarged  Edition. 

THE  DOCTRINE  OFGOD.  By  \ViLLiAM  N.  Clarke,  D.D.,  Professor 
of  Systematic  Theology,  Hamilton  Theological  Seminary. 

THE  DOCTRINE  OF  MAN.  By  William  P.  Patersox,  D.D.,  Professor 
of  Divinity,  University  of  Edinburgh. 

THE  DOCTRINE  OF  CHRIST.  By  H.  R.  Mackixtosh,  Ph.D.,  Professor 
of  Systematic  Theology,  New  College,  Edinburgh. 

THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  SALVATION.  By  George  B.  StE- 
VEXS,  D.D.,  sometime  Professor  of  Systematic  Theology,  Yale  University. 

\_NoT.v  Ready. 

THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  LIFE.  By  AVilliam  Adams 
Brown,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Systematic  Theology,  Union  Theological 
Seminary,  New  York. 

CHRISTIAN  ETHICS.  By  NewmA\  Smyth,  D.D,,  Pastor  of  Congrega- 
tional Church,  New  Plaven.  {Revised  and  Enlarged  Edition. 

THE    CHRISTIAN    PASTOR    AND  THE    WORKING    CHURCH.      By 

Waskixgtox  Gladdex,  D.D.,  Pastor  of  Congregational  Church,  Columbus, 
Ohio.  [N'ow  Ready. 

THE  CHRISTIAN  PREACHER.  \_Ant/ior  to  be  announced  later. 

RABBINICAL  LITERATURE.    By  S.   Schechter,   M.A.,    President  of 

the  Jewish  Theological  Seminary,  New  York  City. 


?tbe  3nternationaI  ^beological  Xibrar^. 


EDITED  BY 

CHARLES   A.   BRIGGS,   D.D., 

Graduate  Professor  of  Theological  Eticyclopadia  and  Symbolics,   Union 
Theological  Seviinary,  New   York ; 


The  late  STEWART  D.  F.  SALMOND,  D.D., 

Principal^  and  Professor  of  Systematic  Theology  and  New  Testament  Exegesis, 
United  Free  Church  College,  Aberdeen. 


CANON    AND    TEXT    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT, 

Bv  CASPAR  RENE   GREGORY, 
D.D.,  LL.D. 


International  Theological  Library 


CANON   AND   TEXT 


OF    THE 


NEW  TESTAMENT 


BY 

CASPAR    REN£   GREGORY 


NEW    YORK 

CHARLES    SCRIBNER'S    SONS 

1907 


TO 

MY    OLD    FRIEND 

JOHN     KEMP 

OF    LINCOLN'S   INN      BARRISTER   AT    LAW 

IN    GRATEFUL   REMEMBRANCE   OF    MUCH 
HELP   AND    SYMPATHY 


CANON   AND   TEXT 


VAGES 

A  GenbCal  View  .....  1-3 

CANON 5-295 

Introduction  ......  7-42 

A.  The  word  Canon,  pp.  15-20; — B.  The  Jewish  Canon, 
pp.  20-26  ; — C.  Intercommunication,  pp.  26-31  ; — D. 
Book-Making,  pp.  32-36  ; — E.  What  we  seek,  pp.  36-42 

I.  THE  APOSTOLIC  AGE:  33-90(100).  .  .  43-54 

II.  THE  POST- APOSTOLIC  AGE :  90-160  .  .         55-110 

in.  THE  AGE  OF  IREN^US  :  160-200    .  .  .       111-217 

Witnesses,  pp.  111-159; — Possibilities  of  Tradition, 
pp.  159-162  ; — Testimony  to  each  book,  pp.  162-212  ; 
— Books  read  in  church,  pp.  213-216 

IV.  THE  AGE  OF  ORIGEN :  200-300       .  .  .       218-255 

Books  in  the  New  Testament,  pp.  219-234  ; — Books 
near  the  New  Testament,  pp.  234-255 

V.  THE  AGE  OF  EUSEBIUS  :  300-370   .  .  .       256-272 

VI.  THE  AGE    OF  THEODORE   OF    MOPSUESTIA: 

370-700  ......      273-295 

TEXT 297-528 

I.  PAPYRUS 299-316 

II.  PARCHMENT 317-328 

III.  LARGE  LETTER  GREEK  MANUSCRIPTS  .      329-369 

Sinaiticus,  p.  329  ;  Vaticanus,  p.  343 

IV.  SMALL  LETTER  GREEK  MANUSCRIPTS  .       370-383 

V.  LESSON-BOOKS 384-393 

VI.  TRANSLATIONS         .  .  .  .  .       394-418 

Syriac,  p.  396 ;  Coptic,  p.  403  ;  Latin,  p.  407 

VIL  CHURCH  WRITERS  .  .  .  .  .       419-436 

Second  Century,  p.  430;  Third  Century,  p.  431  ; 
Fourth  Century,  p.  432 

VIII.  PRINTED  EDITIONS 437-466 

Complutensian,  p.  439  ;  Erasmus,  p.  440  ;  Estienne,  p. 
441  ;  Mill,  p.  445  ;  Bengel,  p.  447  ;  Wettstein,  p.  447  ; 
Harwood,  p.  449 ;  Lachmann,  p.  452  ;  Tischendorf, 
p.  455  ;  Tregelles,  p.  460  ;  W^estcott  and  Hort,  p.  463 

IX.  THE  EXTERNALS  OF  THE  TEXT  .  .       467-478 

Order  of  Books,  p.  467  ;  Harmony  of  Gospels,  p.  470  ; 
Euthalius,  p.  472  ;  Verses,  p.  474 

X.  EARLY  HISTORY  OF  TEXT  .  .  .       479-528 

Classes   of  Text,    p.    480 ;    Original    Text,    p.  483 ; 

Re- Wrought  Text,  p.  486  ;    Polished   Text,  p.  491  ; 

Syrian  Revisions,  p.  494 ;  Official  Text,  p.  500 ; 
Interesting  Passages,  pp.  508-526 


THE    CANON   AND  THE  TEXT 

OF    THE 

NEW  TESTAMENT. 


A  GENERAL  VIEW. 

The  consideration  of  the  canon  and  the  text  of  the  New 
Testament  forms  a  preface  to  the  study  of  what  is  called  intro- 
duction. It  is  true  that  these  two  topics  have  sometimes  of 
late  years  been  remanded  to  the  close  of  introduction,  have  been 
treated  in  a  somewhat  perfunctory  way,  and  have  been  threatened 
with  exclusion  from  the  field.  The  earlier  habit  of  joining  them 
together  and  placing  them  at  the  front  was  much  more  correct. 
Now  and  then  they  were  termed  as  a  whole  "general  introduc- 
tion." The  rest  of  introduction,  the  criticism  of  the  contents  of 
the  books  in  and  for  themselves,  was  then  called  "special 
introduction."  The  use  of  these  names  does  not  seem  to  me 
to  be  necessary.  The  introduction  to  the  study  of  the  New 
Testament  is  made  up  of  three  criticisms,  of  the  critical  treatment 
of  three  things. 

The  criticism  of  the  canon  tells  us  with  what  writings  we 
have  to  deal,  affords  us  the  needed  insight  into  the  circumstances 
which  accompanied  the  origin  of  these  writings,  and  examines 
not  only  the  favourable  judgment  passed  upon  these  writings 
by  Christianity,  but  also  the  adverse  judgment  that  fell  to  the  lot 
of  other  in  a  certain  measure  similar  writings.  This  first  criticism 
then  rounds  off  the  field  for  the  New  Testament  student.  Other 
writings  he  may  touch  upon  by  way  of  illustration.  He  need 
treat  in  detail  of  no  others.  It  is  true  that  a  few  scholars  have 
I 


2   THE  CANON  AND  THE  TEXT  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

thrust  into  the  introduction  to  the  New  Testament  a  series  of 
other  books  not  belonging  to  the  New  Testament,  and  that  a 
collection  of  such  books  was  issued  under  the  title  of  the  "  New 
Testament  outside  of  the  received  canon."  This  proceeding  is 
to  my  mind  unnecessary,  unwise,  and  contrary  to  the  rules  of 
scientific  research.  It  produces  confusion  and  relieves  no 
difficulty. 

The  second  criticism  is  the  criticism  of  the  text.  The 
criticism  of  the  canon  settled  upon  large  lines,  drew  a  circle 
around,  the  object  of  study.  If  we  take  a  given  book  in  hand 
we  know  from  the  criticism  of  the  canon  all  that  we  need  to 
know  of  its  external  fate,  and  we  know  that  it  is  a  due  object  of 
our  attention.  But  upon  opening  it,  or  during  our  work  upon  it, 
we  may  find  that  a  certain  section  in  it,  possibly  a  section  that 
has  excited  our  interest  and  has  led  us  to  much  expense  of  time 
and  labour, — we  may  find  that  this  section  is  really  not  a  proper 
and  genuine  part  of  the  book  in  question.  Further,  even  if 
the  book  mooted  contained  no  complete  paragraph  that  was 
spurious,  it  would  be  possible  that  difficulties,  and  that  of  a 
serious  nature,  arise  from  a  cause  similar  to  the  one  just 
mentioned.  We  might  form  a  certain  conception  of  an  important 
passage  and  base  upon  this  conception  a  historical  conclusion,  a 
dogmatical  theory,  or  an  important  theme  in  a  sermon,  only  to 
learn  at  a  later  date  that  a  phrase  or  a  word  which  was  vital  to 
our  point  was  not  a  part  of  the  true  text  of  the  passage,  that  it 
had  been  the  result  of  an  unintentional  or  even  of  an  intentional 
transformation,  substitution,  or  addition  long  centuries  ago.  It 
is  the  criticism  of  the  text  alone  that  can  save  us  from  such 
trouble.  The  criticism  of  the  text,  if  we  may  play  upon  the 
words,  must  do  intensively  that  which  the  criticism  of  the  canon 
does  extensively;  the  canon  touches  the  exterior,  the  text  the 
interior.  It  must  delve  into  the  libraries,  turn  the  leaves  of  the 
manuscripts,  and  determine  for  us  what  words  and  combinations 
of  words  make  up  each  of  the  books  to  which  we  have  to  turn. 
Is  the  state  of  the  text  at  any  point  uncertain,  this  criticism  tells 
us  about  it,  and  gives  us  the  materials  for  forming  a  judgment  for 
ourselves. 

The  third  criticism  is  the  criticism  of  the  contents  of  the 
books.  It  finds  its  way  clear  so  soon  as  the  two  previous 
criticisms  have  done  their  work.     Jt  proceeds  then  tQ  examine 


A  GENERAL  VIEW  3 

in  detail  all  questions  that  affect  the  contents  of  the  books.  It 
is  not  exegesis,  although,  as  in  both  of  the  other  criticisms,  the 
exercise  of  exegetical  keenness  will  be  necessary  at  every  step. 
It  would  be  hard  to  combat  the  declaration  that  the  most 
searching,  profound,  and  complete  exegesis  is  of  the  greatest 
assistance  to  the  work  of  the  criticism  of  the  contents.  Yet 
the  two  are  distinct,  and  the  criticism  of  the  contents  must 
theoretically  and  practically  precede  exegesis  proper,  however 
certain  it  is  that  after  completing  the  criticism  of  the  contents 
and  passing  on  to  and  completing  the  exegesis  of  the  books,  the 
scholar  will  return  to  all  three  of  the  introductory  criticisms  and 
modify  the  judgments  there  passed.  It  is  the  interweaving  of 
all  life.  In  the  present  work  we  have  to  do  solely  with  the  first 
two  criticisms. 


THE    CANON 

OF 

THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 


THE    CANON, 


INTRODUCTION. 

The  first  duty  of  a  scholar  is  to  secure  a  clear  view  of  his  aim 
in  taking  up  a  given  subject.  In  the  case  of  a  large  number  of 
the  writings  which  treat  of  the  right  that  the  New  Testament 
books  have  to  a  place  in  that  collection,  this  duty  has  so  far  as 
I  can  see  been  neglected.  The  discussions  touching  the  proper 
contents  of  the  New  Testament  have  been  dominated  by  the 
word  canon.  This  word  has,  it  may  be  imperceptibly,  come  to 
determine  the  course  of  the  inquiry.  The  general  supposition  is 
that  a  canon  exists.  It  is  in  approaching  the  subject  taken  for 
granted  as  a  thing  long  ago  proved,  or  so  certainly  and  well 
known  as  to  need  no  proof,  that  a  certain  canon  was  settled 
upon  at  a  very  early  date  in  the  history  of  the  Christian  Church. 
And  the  word  canon  in  connection  with  this  view  means  a 
sharply  defined  and  unalterable  collection  made,  put  together, 
decided  upon  by  general  Church  authority  under  the  guidance 
of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  long  held  theory  of  the  inspiration  of 
every  word  in  the  books  of  the  Bible  needed  as  an  accompani- 
ment an  inspired  selection  of  the  inspired  books.  For  the 
purposes,  then,  of  the  inquiring  scholar  the  canon  of  the  New 
Testament  is  the  book  or  the  collection  of  the  books  of  the  New 
Testament,  and  that  of  the  New  Testament  precisely  in  the 
extent  and  within  the  limits  of  the  one  that  we  use  to-day. 

From  this  starting-point  it  has  been  the  custom  to  enter 
upon  the  "  history  "  of  the  canon.  The  canon  is  presupposed 
as  something  that  of  right  exists  and  is  beyond  all  doubt.  All 
then  that  is  to  be  done  is  to  trace  the  various  steps  that  led  in 
the  early  age  of  the  Church  to  its  formation  and  determination 
or  authorisation,  that  is  to  say,  it  is  only  necessary  to  write  the 


8     •  THE  CANON 

history  of  the  canon,  as  though  we  should  speak  of  the  history  of 
the  Church  or  of  the  history  of  Greece.  If  in  examining  the 
subject  one  thing  or  another  seem  uncertain  or  not  clear,  it  is 
no  matter.  That  is  a  mere  accident  of  history.  The  canon 
exists,  that  is  plain,  whether  we  know  or  do  not  know  when  and 
why,  according  to  what  rules  and  regulations,  and  by  whom  it 
was  formed.  The  inquiry  then  serves  merely  to  determine  the 
question  of  more  or  of  less  in  the  contents  of  the  canon,  or  of 
more  or  less  in  the  testimony  to  the  existence  and  contents  of  the 
canon.  These  things  are  all  very  well ;  they  are  right,  and  are 
of  weight  in  clearing  up  the  whole  field.  Nevertheless  this  is 
not  the  right  aim,  not  the  right  way  to  put  the  question.  The 
reason  why  it  has  done  less  mischief  than  it  otherwise  might 
have  done,  is  that  the  larger  number  of  the  books  of  the  New 
Testament  were  from  a  very  early  period  beyond  all  doubt  in 
the  possession  of  and  were  diligently  used  by  many  Christians. 

That  way  of  opening  the  case  was  wrong.  The  first  thing  to 
be  done  is  to  determine  whether  or  not  there  is  a  canon.  For 
the  moment  we  may  here  hold  fast  to  the  current  use  of  the 
expression.  The  first  duty  of  the  inquirer  in  this  field  is  to 
determine  whether  or  not  there  existed  at  an  early  period  in  the 
history  of  the  Christian  Church  a  positively  official  and  authorised 
collection  of  books  that  was  acknowledged  by  the  whole  of 
Christendom,  that  was  everywhere  and  in  precisely  the  same 
manner  constituted  and  certain,  and  that  corresponded  exactly 
to  the  New  Testament  now  generally  in  use  in  Western  Europe 
and  in  America.  Compare  the  case  with  that  of  the  word 
doctrine  or  dogma.  A  dogma  is  a  doctrinal  statement  that  has 
been  officially,  ecclesiastically  defined,  that  has  been  determined 
upon  by  a  general  council  of  the  Church.  Were  it  not  open  to 
view  that  such  official  definitions  are  in  our  hands,  the  first  aim 
of  the  dogmatician  would  be  to  inquire  whether  there  were  any 
dogmas  in  existence.  We  have  now  to  ask,  whether  or  not 
there  is  a  canon  of  the  New  Testament.  Our  first  aim  is  not 
the  history  of  the  canon,  but  the  criticism  of  the  canon.  Should 
it  be  objected  that  we  cannot  criticise  a  thing  that  does  not 
exist,  the  reply  to  this  just  observation  is,  that  the  criticism  of 
the  canon,  in  case  a  canon  does  not  exist,  resolves  itself  into 
the  criticism  of  the  statements  about  a  presupposed  canon, 
statements  that  have  been  rife  for  a  long  while.     We  have,  on 


INTRODUCTION  9 

the  one  liand,  to  examine  the  traditionally  accepted  statements 
and  declarations  bearing  upon  the  origin  or  the  original  existence 
of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  and  upon  the  process  by 
which  they  were  gathered  together  into  one  collection.  On  the 
other  hand,  we  have  to  seek  in  the  surroundings  of  the  early 
Church,  in  the  early  Church  in  so  far  as  it  occupied  itself  with 
the  earliest  books,  in  the  early  Church  as  the  guardian  of  the 
earliest  books, — we  have  to  seek  for  signs  of  the  combination 
of,  the  putting  together  of,  the  uniting  of,  two  or  more  books  in 
such  a  way  that  they  were  to  remain  together  as  forming  a 
special  and  definite  volume  of  a  more  or  less  normative  character 
for  the  use  of  Christians  and  the  Church.  We  say  of  Christians 
and  of  the  Church.  The  two  are  not  of  necessity  the  same.  It 
would  be  quite  possible  to  think  of  the  combining  into  one 
volume  of  various  books  which  would  be  interesting  and  useful 
and  even  adapted  to  build  up  a  Christian  character,  and  which, 
therefore,  would  be  desirable  for  Christians,  which  nevertheless 
would  not  be  suited  in  the  least  for  the  public  services  of  the 
Church.  We  shall  see  later  that  it  was  possible  for  some  writings 
to  be  upon  the  boundary  between  these  two  classes,  between  the 
books  for  Christians  in  their  private  life  and  the  books  for  use  in 
church. 

Should  any  one  fear  that  it  must  be  totally  impossible  to 
give  a  due  answer  to  the  question  as  to  the  existence  of  a  canon 
before  the  whole  field  has  been  carefully  examined,  the  difficulty 
or  the  impossibility  must  at  once  be  conceded.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  however,  the  difficulty  is  hardly  more  than  an  apparent, 
or  a  theoretical,  or  a  momentary  one.  For  if  we  proceed 
upon  the  supposition  that  no  canon  is  to  be  presupposed,  that 
we  are  not  to  determine  that  there  is  a  canon  until  we  discover 
it  in  the  course  of  our  inquiry,  the  difficulty  will  be  only  apparent 
or  theoretical.  Our  researches  upon  the  lines  already  pointed 
out  will  continue  unhampered,  either  until  a  canon  offers  itself 
to  view,  or  until,  having  reached  the  present  without  detecting 
signs  of  a  canon,  we  conclude  that  none  ever  existed.  The 
answer  to  the  question  must  come  forth  from  the  threads  of 
the  discussion.  It  is  indifferent  at  what  point.  In  so  far  as 
the  fear  alluded  to  proceeds  from  a  solicitude  for  the  dearly 
cherished  canon  of  tradition,  the  difficulty  may  prove  to  be  but 
temporary.     P'or  the  current  assumption  is,  that    the    canon   is 


lO  THE  CANON 

there  almost  from  the  first,  that  the  books  of  the  New  Testament 
can  scarcely  be  conceived  of  as  all  in  existence  for  an  appreciable 
space  of  time  before  the  swift  arm  of  ecclesiastical  power  and 
forethought  gathered  them  from  the  four  winds  of  heaven  and 
sealed  them  in  the  official  volume.  Should  we,  then,  in  the 
earliest  periods  of  the  history  of  the  Church  find  that  the  assumed 
canon  fails  to  present  itself  to  our  view,  there  will,  it  is  true, 
be  a  certain  shock  to  be  borne  by  those  who  have  thus  far  held 
to  the  existence  of  the  canon.  But  that  will  pass  quickly  by  and 
leave  a  calm  mind  for  the  treatment  of  the  succeeding  periods. 

In  one  case  or  another  a  question  might  emerge  from  the 
discussion  that  would  perplex  the  inquiring  mind.  Should 
the  testimony  for  a  given  book  seem  either  to  be  weak  in  general 
or  to  offer  special  and  peculiar  reasons  for  uncertainty,  the  query 
would  at  once  arise,  whether  it  have  had,  and  whether  it  still 
to-day  continue  to  have  or  cease  to  have,  a  right  to  hold  the 
place  it  actually  occupies  in  the  New  Testament  volume.  Such 
doubt  might  even  find  a  proper  place  in  consideration  of  the 
rules  which  were  either  clearly  seen  to  be,  or  which  have  long 
been  traditionally  assumed  to  be,  the  rules  of  the  early  Christians 
for  accepting  or  for  rejecting  books.  In  such  a  case  it  would 
not  be  absolutely  necessary  to  think  of  a  false  judgment,  of  a 
false  subjective  conception,  on  the  part  of  the  Christians  of  that 
day,  of  facts  or  of  circumstances  that  stood  and  stand  in  fully 
the  same  manner  at  the  command  of  the  Christians  then  and 
of  Christians  to-day.  For  it  is  altogether  conceivable  that  a 
scholar  to-day  should  be  able  to  gain  a  wider  and  more  compre- 
hensive view  of  the  circumstances  of  that  early  time,  as  well 
as  greater  clearness  and  greater  depth  of  insight  into  the  mental 
movements  of  the  period,  than  a  Christian  scholar  of  that  very 
time  could  have  secured.  It  may  be  possible  or  necessary  to 
say  that  the  decision  at  that  time  would  have  been  ren- 
dered in  another  sense  if  the  judges  had  known  what  we  now 
know. 

This  question  would  in  outward  practice  take  the  form  of 
asking,  whether  or  not  we  intend  to-day  either  to  limit  or  to 
extend  the  number  of  the  books  in  the  New  Testament,  whether, 
for  example,  we  should  like  to  leave  out  the  Epistle  of  James 
because  Luther  did  not  like  it,  or   the    Revelation    because   it 


INTRODUCTION  II 

is  too  dream -like,  or  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  because  it  is 
not  from  Paul's  mouth,  or  the  Second  Epistle  of  Peter  because 
it  was  so  little  known  at  the  first,  or  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles 
partly  because  it  is  not  mentioned  until  a  late  date,  partly  because 
it  offers  to  us  a  great  many  puzzling  questions,  or  the  Fourth 
Gospel  because  it  does  not  say :  "  I,  John  the  son  of  Zebedee, 
write  this  present  book  and  place  my  seal  upon  it,  which  shall 
remain  visible  to  every  man  to  all  eternity."  Do  we  really 
purpose  to  ask  the  Bible  societies  to  publish  the  New  Testament 
without  one  or  the  other  of  these  books?  This  question  will 
strike  younger  men  as  very  strange.  It  will  seem  less  singular 
to  the  older  ones  who  remember  the  apocryphal  books  of  the 
Old  Testament  in  our  common  Bibles.  These  books  had  for 
centuries  in  many  circles  maintained  their  place  beside,  among, 
the  books  of  the  Old  Testament.  The  Protestant  Church  looked 
askance  at  some  of  them,  condemned  them  all,  and  put  them 
out  of  the  Bibles  in  common  use,  so  that  to-day  it  is  not  easy 
for  any  but  scholars  to  find  access  to  them.  It  was  scarcely 
well-advised  to  turn  those  books  out  of  the  sacred  volume ;  for 
they  offered  not  only  much  valuable  historical  matter,  but  as 
well  religious  writings  suited  to  elevate  the  soul.  They  went  far 
to  bridge  over  the  gulf  between  the  Old  and  the  New  Testa- 
ment. From  this — to  return  to  the  practical  question  just 
put — it  will  at  once  be  apparent  to  every  one  that  we  do  not 
cherish  the  wish  to  reduce  the  number  of  the  books  of  the 
New  Testament. 

The  companion  thought  is  just  as  possible.  It  may  be 
necessary  to  ask,  whether  after  due  consideration  of  the 
circumstances  it  may  become  our  duty  to  say  that  other  writings 
besides  those  that  are  found  in  our  New  Testament  to-day  are 
to  be  declared  worthy  to  have  a  place  in  it.  Perhaps  some 
one  may  succeed  in  proving  that  if  the  Christians  of  that 
day  had  had  our  knowledge  touching  a  given  book  they  would 
have  received  it  as  a  proper  part  of  the  New  Testament  collection. 
This  thought  may  assume  the  form,  that  we  are  in  a  position 
to  declare  that  a  certain  book,  which  in  some  circles  was  then 
regarded  as  either  belonging  lo  the  New  Testament  or  as 
being  fully  equal  to  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament,  would 
certainly  also  on  the  part  of  the  authoritative  or  ruling  circles 
of  the  time  have  met  with  a  more  favourable  reception  and  have 


12  THE  CANON 

been  placed  among  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  had  those 
high  circles  had  our  present  knowledge  with  respect  to  the  book 
in  question.  But  we  have  no  desire  to  increase  directly  the 
number  of  the  books  in  our  New  Testament  or  to  add  to  it 
as  a  second  volume  the  so-called  "  New  Testament  outside  of 
the  received  canon." 

Lest  any  one  should  be  led  by  these  observations  to  suppose 
that  it  is  our  purpose  to  turn  the  whole  of  the  New  Testament 
upside  down,  or  at  least  to  make  it  appear  that  the  greater 
part  of  it  is  of  doubtful  value,  we  hasten  to  state  that  we  have 
no  such  intention,  and  that  we  regard  anything  of  that  kind 
as  scientifically  impossible.  The  books  of  the  New  Testament 
are  in  general  to  be  recognised  as  from  an  early  date  the 
normative  writings  of  the  rising  Christian  Church.  It  is  not 
easy  to  see  upon  what  ground  a  man  could  take  his  stand, 
who  should  set  out  to  prove,  let  us  say,  that  only  one  Gospel 
or  only  one  letter  of  Paul's  was  genuine,  or  even  that  not  a  single 
New  Testament  book  was  genuine.  In  that  case  Christianity 
must  have  developed  itself  from  a  cell  or  a  convolution  in  the 
brain  of  a  Gnostic  of  the  second  century,  and  also  have  unfolded 
itself  by  a  backward  motion  into  the  books  of  the  so-called 
New  Testament  But,  if  the  Church  were  prepared  to  accept 
this,  we  may  be  sure  that  some  one  would  at  once  call  the 
existence  of  that  Gnostic,  or  of  any  and  every  Gnostic,  in  ques- 
tion. It  is,  then,  not  our  purpose  either  to  declare  or  to  prove 
that  the  New  Testament  is  not  genuine. 

People,  however,  often  treat  the  Bible,  and  in  particular 
the  New  Testament,  as  if  they  were  fetish  worshippers.  They 
refer  to  the  books,  to  the  paragraphs,  to  the  sentences,  and  to 
the  words  with  a  species  of  holy  fear.  They  refuse  to  allow 
the  least  portion  of  it  to  be  called  in  question.  They  consider 
a  free,  a  paraphrastic  use  of  its  sentences  to  be  something 
profane.  They  hold  that  the  words  of  the  New  Testament 
are  to  be  reproduced,  quoted,  used  with  the  most  painful  accuracy 
precisely  as  they  stand  upon  the  sacred  page.  They  think 
that  anything  else,  any  free  use  of  the  words,  any  shortening  or 
lengthening  of  the  sentences,  falls  under  the  terrible  curse 
pronounced  in  the  Revelation  of  John  at  the  close  of  its 
prophecies.     It  may  readily  be  granted  that  the  general  thought 


INTRODUCTION  1 3 

of  those  verses  may  in  special  cases  find  a  fitting  application 
vvithin  a  limited  circle,  in  order  to  keep  thoughtless  men  from 
a  trifling  use  of  these  books  and  of  their  words.  As  a  curse, 
the  words  should  be  remanded  to  the  time  and  the  circle  of 
the  author  of  that  particular  book.  It  is  never  desirable,  never 
admissible  to  use  the  truth  and  the  words  of  the  truth  as  a 
means  of  frightening  the  ignorant,  and  as  little  should  we  try 
to  protect  the  words  of  the  truth  by  a  bugbear.  The  truth 
suffers,  it  is  true,  under  every  impure  application  of  its  contents, 
and  as  well  under  every  less  careful  observance  of,  or  every 
twisted  and  untrue  use  of,  the  form  of  its  contents.  The  writings 
of  the  New  Testament  are  not  to  be  treated  with  levity.  But 
they  are  just  as  little  to  be  used  in  a  mysterious  way  to 
frighten  people. 

It  will  be  our  duty  here  first  of  all  to  examine  the  somewhat 
kaleidoscopic  word  canon,  since  we  shall  otherwise  stumble 
at  every  step  in  tracing  its  use  in  profane  and  ecclesiastical 
history.  After  that  it  will  be  advisable  to  cast  a  glance  at  the 
way  in  which  the  Jews  treated  their  sacred  books.  The  Jews 
stood  as  patterns  to  a  certain  degree  for  the  men  who  gathered 
the  books  of  the  New  Testament  together,  seeing  that  at  the 
first  these  books  were  brought  into  close  connection  with  the 
books  of  the  Old  Testament.  As  a  matter  of  course  no  Jewish 
authority  can  have  had  a  hand  in  the  collection  of  the  Christian 
books.  Yet  we  must  seek  in  Jewish  circles  for  a  clue  to  the 
thoughts  that  guided  the  Christian  collectors.  The  question 
as  to  the  freedom  of  travel  and  the  ease  or  difficulty  of  com- 
munication between  different  parts  of  the  known  world  of  that 
day,  or  of  the  Roman  Empire  with  its  surroundings,  might  seem 
at  the  first  blush  to  lie  far  aside  from  our  inquiry.  If  I  do 
not  err,  it  really  has  much  weight  for  our  researches,  and  we 
shall  devote  a  few  moments  to  it.  It  will  also  be  apparent  to 
every  one  that  we  must  give  some  attention  in  advance  to  the, 
way  in  which  books  were  written,  given  to  the  public,  and 
reproduced  in  the  early  centuries  of  our  era.  These  four  points  : 
the  canon,  the  Jewish  canon,  intercommunication  in  the  Roman 
Empire,  and  bookmaking,  complete  the  necessary  preparation 
for  the  work  before  us.  We  shall  then  describe  briefly  what 
it   is    to  which  we    have  to    direct    our   attention  in    entering 


14  THE  CANON 

upon  the  examination  of  the  early  history  and  h'terature  of  the 
Church. 

In  the  criticism  of  the  canon  itself,  it  would  be  most  fortunate 
if  we  could,  as  is  desirable  in  every  treatment  of  historical  matter, 
build  our  foundation  or  lay  out  the  course  of  our  researches 
concomitantly,  not  only  according  to  time,  but  also  according 
to  place.  Since  that  is,  alas !  impossible,  it  would  be  a  good 
thing  to  pass  through  the  whole  field  of  this  criticism  twice, 
discussing  everything  the  first  time  according  to  the  succession 
of  the  years  and  centuries,  and  the  second  time  according  to 
the  contemporaneous  conditions  in  the  several  divisions  of  the 
growing  Church,  in  the  Churches  of  the  different  countries,  peoples, 
and  tongues.  This  would,  however,  exceed  the  limits  of  our 
space,  and  we  shall  therefore  have  to  content  ourselves  with 
treating  our  subject  according  to  time.  We  shall  speak  of 
six  periods.  The  distinction  of  these  periods  is  to  a  large  extent 
not  severely  necessary,  but  it  is  convenient. 

The  first  period  extends  from  the  year  30  to  90  after  Christ, 
and  may  be  termed  the  period  of  the  Apostles.  In  it  the  most 
of  the  books  with  which  we  have  to  do  were  written.  The 
second  period,  from  90  to  160.  places  before  our  eyes  the  earlier 
use  of  the  books  that  are  in  the  New  Testament,  and  the 
gathering  them  together  into  groups,  preparing  for  their  com- 
bination into  a  single  whole.  This  period  is,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  by  far  the  most  important  period  in  the  course  of  our 
discussion.  For  it  is  during  these  years  of  this  post-apostolic 
period  that  these  books  pass  from  a  common  to  a  sacred  use. 
The  third  period,  from  160  to  200,  we  may  call  the  period 
of  Irenseus.  Here  the  Old  Catholic  Church  is  on  a  firm  footing, 
and  the  life  in  several  of  the  great  national  divis'ons  of  the 
Church  begins  to  be  more  open  and  more  confident.  The 
fourth  period,  from  200  to  300,  bears  the  stamp  of  the  giant 
Origen,  but  brings  with  it  many  a  valiant  man,  not  least 
Dionysius  of  Alexandria  and  Tertull^'an  of  Carthage.  The  fifth 
period,  from  300  to  370,  the  period  of  Eusebius,  sees  the  opening 
of  the  series  of  great  councils  in  the  Council  of  Nice  in  325. 
Eusebius  himself,  the  quoter  of  the  earlier  literature  of  the 
Church,  has  done  a  vast  deal  for  the  definition  of  the  canon. 
The  sixth  period,  from  370  to  700,  bears  the  name  of  the  much 


INTRODUCTION—^.  THE  WORD  CANON  1 5 

defamed  scholar,  the  great  theologian  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia, 
and  brings  us  into  the  work  of  Jerome  and  of  Augustine.  By 
that  time  the  treatment  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament 
has  become  to  such  a  degree  uniform  in  the  different  parts  of 
the  Church,  or  has,  in  case  of  the  variation  of  some  communities 
from  the  general  rule,  attained  such  a  stability,  that  it  is  no 
longer  necessary  to  follow  it  up  in  detail.  Should  a  canon 
not  be  determined  upon  before  the  close  of  that  period,  should 
a  given  book  not  have  won  for  itself  a  clear  recognition  by 
that  time,  there  is  but  little  likelihood  that  the  one  or  thfi  other 
ever  will  come  to  pass. 


A,  The  Word  Canon. 

The  word  canon  seems  to  spring  from  a  Hebrew  root,  unless 
indeed  this  should  be  one  of  the  roots  that  extend  across  the 
bounds  of  the  classes  of  languages  and  may  claim  a  universal 
authority.  The  Hebrew  verb  ''''  kaiia^'  means  to  stand  a  thing  up 
straight,  and  then  takes  the  subsidiary  meanings  of  creating  or 
founding,  and  of  gaining  or  buying.  The  first  or  main  sense 
leads  to  the  Hebrew  noun  ^^  kane"  that  at  first  means  a  reed.  Of 
course  such  a  reed  was  for  a  man  without  wood  at  hand  an  excellent 
measuring-rod,  and  the  word  was  applied  to  that  too;  and  it 
was  taken  horizontally  also  and  used  for  the  rod  of  a  pair  of  scales, 
and  then  for  the  scales  themselves.  In  Greek  we  find  the  word 
"  kanna  "  used  for  a  reed  and  for  things  made  by  weaving  reeds 
together,  and  the  word  ^^kanon  "  for  any  straight  stick  like  a  yard- 
stick or  the  scale  beam.  In  Homer  the  latter  word  was  used  for 
the  two  pieces  of  wood  that  were  laid  crosswise  to  keep  the  leather 
shield  well  rounded  out.  The  word  "  kanon^^  which  we  then  write 
canon  in  English,  found  favour  in  the  eyes  of  the  Greek,  and 
passed  from  the  sense  of  a  measuring-rod  to  be  used  for  a  plumb- 
line  or  for  a  level,  or  a  ruler,  for  anything  that  was  a  measure  or 
a  rule  for  other  things.  It  entered  the  mental  sphere  and  there 
it  also  stood  for  a  rule,  for  an  order  that  told  a  man  what  was 
right  or  what  he  had  to  do.  In  sculpture  a  statue  modelled  by 
Polycleitos  was  called  a  canon,  for  it  was  so  nearly  perfect  that  it 
was  acknowledged  as  a  rule  for  the  proportions  of  a  beautiful 
human  body.    In  music  the  monochord  was  called  a  canon,  seeing 


1 6  THE  CANON 

that  all  the  further  relations  of  tones  were  determined  from  it 
as  a  basis.  We  call  the  ancient  Greek  writers  classics,  because 
they  are  supposed  to  be  patterns  or  models  in  more  ways  than 
one  ;  the  grammarians  in  Alexandria  called  them  the  canon.  And 
these  same  grammarians  called  their  rules  for  declensions  and 
conjugations  and  syntax  canons.  In  chronology  the  canons  were 
the  great  dates  which  were  known  or  assumed  to  be  certain  and 
firm.  The  periods  in  between  were  then  calculated  from  these 
main  dates.  The  word  was  thus  very  varied  in  its  application ; 
it  might  mean  a  table  of  contents,  it  might  mean  an  important 
principle. 

A  favourite  use  of  the  word  was  for  a  measure,  a  definition, 
an  order,  a  command,  a  law.  Euripides  speaks  of  the  canon  of 
good,  Aeschines  of  the  canon  of  what  is  just.  Philo  speaks  of 
Joshua  as  a  canon,  as  we  might  say,  an  ideal  for  subsequent 
leaders.  Before  the  time  of  Christ  I  do  not  know  that  it  was 
applied  to  religion,  but  it  was  applied  in  morals.  Other  words 
were  often  used  by  preference  for  positive  laws  and  ordinances, 
and  canon  was  used  for  a  law  or  a  command  that  only  existed  in 
the  conception  of  the  mind  or  for  an  ideal  rule. 

Christians  found  good  use  for  such  a  word.  Paul  used  it  in 
the  sixth  chapter  of  Galatians  and  the  sixteenth  verse,  where  after 
speaking  of  the  worthlessness  of  circumcision  and  of  non- 
circumcision  and  the  worth  of  a  new  creation,  he  added :  mercy 
be  upon  all  those  that  walk  according  to  this  canon.  And  in  the 
tenth  chapter  of  Second  Corinthians,  verses  thirteen  to  sixteen, 
he  alluded  to  the  measure  of  the  canon,  to  our  canon,  and  to  a 
foreign  canon.  Our  good  women  of  to-day  will  not  admire  the 
phrase  used  in  the  letter  of  the  Church  at  Rome  to  the  Church 
at  Corinth,  the  so-called  letter  of  Clement,  which  speaks  (i.  3)  of 
the  women  "  who  are  under  the  canon  of  obedience."  The  same 
letter  also  says  (7.  2):  "Let  us  quit,  then,  the  empty  and  vain 
cares  and  pass  on  to  the  glorious  and  honourable  canon  of  our 
tradition."  And  in  still  a  third  sentence  of  it  (41.  i)  we  find  the 
words :  "  without  going  out  beyond  the  set  canon  of  his  due 
service."  Hegesippus  (Eus.  H.  E.  3.  32)  speaks  of  people  "who 
try  to  corrupt  the  sound  canon  of  the  saving  preaching "  or  of 
the  proclamation  of  salvation.  The  author  of  the  Clementine 
books  finds  the  "  canon  of  the  Church  "  in  that  in  which  all  Jews 
agree  with  each  other,  for  he  conceives  of  the   Church  merely 


INTRODUCTION—^.   THE  WORD  CANON  1 7 

as  a  spiritual  Judaism.  The  Christian  Church  began  to  feel 
its  union  in  a  more  distinct  manner  than  at  the  first,  and  the  Old 
Catholic  Church  began  to  crystallise  during  the  second  century. 
The  Christianity  of  this  movement  was  a  development,  but  a 
development  backwards,  for,  like  the  author  just  mentioned,  it 
found  its  basis  in  the  Old  Testament.  Christianity  was  no  longer 
with  Paul  free  from  the  law.  It  had  put  itself  again  under 
the  law,  even  though  with  manifold  modifications.  For  this 
Christianity  our  word  was  applied  in  a  general  sense;  the 
ecclesiastical  canon  was  the  token  of  the  union  of  the  Old  and 
the  New  Testament.  Clement  of  Alexandria  (Str.  6.  15)  called 
"the  ecclesiastical  canon  the  harmony  and  symphony  of  both 
law  and  prophets  with  the  covenant  or  the  testament  given  when 
the  Lord  was  here,"  while  in  another  passage  (6.  11)  he  refers 
to  the  "musical  ecclesiastical  harmony  of  law  and  prophets, 
joined  also  with  apostles,  with  the  gospel."  He  also  speaks  of 
the  canon  of  the  truth.  Elsewhere  (7.  16)  he  speaks  of  those 
who  like  heretics  "  steal  the  canon  of  the  Church."  Polycrates, 
the  bishop  of  Ephesus,  in  writing  to  Victor  of  Rome  appealed 
to  the  witness  of  men  who  followed  after  the  canon  of  the  faith. 
Origen,  Clement's  pupil,  refers  (de  Pr.  4.  9)  to  the  canon  "  of  the 
heavenly  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  according  to  the  succession 
of  the  apostles."  He  still  thinks  of  the  canon  as  something 
which  lies  more  in  the  idea;  the  ecclesiastical  proclamation 
or  preaching  was,  on  the  contrary,  something  actual. 

Little  by  little  the  word  canon  came  to  be  used  in  the  Church 
for  a  concrete  thing,  for  a  definite  and  certain  decision.  This  is 
in  one  way  a  return  to  the  origin,  only  that  it  is  no  longer  a  foot- 
rule  or  a  spirit-level,  but  an  ecclesiastical  determination.  It  was 
about  the  middle  of  the  third  century  that  Cornelius,  the  bishop 
of  Rome,  wrote  to  Fabian,  the  bishop  of  Antioch,  about  Novatus, 
and  complained  (Eus.  H.  E.  6.  43)  that,  after  being  baptized  when 
he  was  ill,  he  had  not  done  what,  "according  to  the  canon  of 
the  Church,"  was  necessary.  Firmilian  seems  to  have  the  word 
canon  in  mind  shortly  after  the  middle  of  the  third  century, 
when  he  writes  (Cypr.  Ep.  75)  about  a  woman  who  imitated  a 
baptism  so  well  "  that  nothing  seemed  to  vary  from  the  ecclesi- 
astical rule  " ;  he  probably  would  have  used  the  word  canon  if  he 
had  been  writing  in  Greek  instead  of  in  Latin.  In  the  year 
266  a  synod  at  Antioch  (T^Iansi,  i.  1033),  in  referring  to  Paul  of 


1 8  THE  CANON 

Samosata,  declared  one  of  his  doctrines  to  be  "foreign  to  the 
ecclesiastical  canon " ;  the  synod  used  the  cautious  expression 
"  we  think  it  to  be,"  but  added :  "  and  all  the  Catholic  Churches 
agree  with  us."     The  edicts  of  Constantine  after  311  made  the 
conception  of  Christianity  upon  which  the  Catholic  and  Apostolic 
Church  was  based,  that  is  to  say,  the  ecclesiastical  canon  of  the 
Catholics,  a  recognised  religion.     Had  it  been  a  religion  with  a 
visible  god,  its  god  would  then  have  had  a  right  to  a  place  in  the 
Pantheon  at  Rome.     Thus  the  ecclesiastical  canon,  the  canon  of 
the  Church,  had  become  a  set  phrase  to  denote  the  rule  of  the 
Church,  the  custom  and  general  doctrine  of  the  Church.     Often 
merely  the  word  canon  was  used      The  Synod  of  Ancyra  in  the 
year  315  referred  to  it  as  the  canon,  and  so  did  the  Council  of 
Nice  in  325  repeatedly.     The  plural  appears  to  view  first  about 
the  beginning  of  the  fourth  century.     Perhaps  in  the  year  306 
Peter,  the  bishop  of  Alexandria,  in  writing  of  repentance  calls  the 
conclusions  canons,  and   Eusebius  speaks   of  Philo   as   having 
the  canons  of  the  Church.     At  first  the  decisions  of  councils  were 
called  dogmas,  but  towards  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century,  in 
the  year  341  at  Antioch,  they  also  came  to  be  called  canons. 
Thus  far,  as  we  have  seen,  the  word  has  not  been  applied,  in  the 
writings  which  are  preserved  to  us,  to  the  books  of  Scripture.     It 
would,   however,  appear   that    about  the  year  350  it  gradually 
came  to  be  applied  to  them,  but  we  do  not  know  precisely  at  what 
moment  or  where  or  by  whom.     It  has  been  assumed  that  this 
application  might  well  be  carried  back  as  far  as  the  time  of 
Diocletian,  and  to  an  imperial  edict  of  the  year  303  that  ordered 
the  Christian  Scriptures  to  be  burned ;  but  we  have  not  the  least 
foundation  for  such  a  theory.     Felix,  the  official  charged  with 
the  duty  of  caring  for  religion,  and  of  preventing  the  worship  and 
spread  of  religions  that  were  not  recognised  by  the  State,  said  to 
the   Bishop  Paul :   "  Bring  me  the  scriptures  of  the  law,"  and 
Caecilian  wrote  in  303  to  Felix  and  alluded  to  the  scriptures  of 
the  law.     But  this  expression  is  so  properly  and  so  naturally 
suggested  by  the  Old  Testament  and  Jewish  use  of  the  word  law, 
as  to  make  it  totally  improper  to  argue  that  the  word  law  here  is 
canon.     Much  less  does  it  seem  to  me  to  be  admissible,  until  we 
receive  evidence  that  is  not  now  known,  to  attribute  the  use  of 
the  cognate  words  canonical  and  canonise  in  connection  with  the 
Scriptures  to  Origen.    It  is  by  no  means  certain  that  the  word  was 


INTRODUCTION—^.   THE  WORD  CANON  I9 

not  used  earlier  than  I  have  suggested,  but  it  is  well  to  move 
cautiously.  The  first  application  of  the  term  to  Scripture  that  is 
thus  far  known  is  not  direct,  in  the  word  canon,  but  indirect  in 
cognate  words  like  those  just  named.  The  fifty-ninth  canon 
(Mansi,  ii.  574)  of  the  Synod  at  Laodicea  of  about  the  year  363 
determines  that  "private  psalms  should  not  be  read  in  the 
churches,  nor  uncanonised  books,  but  only  the  canonical  [books] 
of  the  New  and  Old  Testament."  And  in  the  year  367,  when 
Athanasius  wrote  the  yearly  letter  (Ep.  Fest.  39)  announcing  to 
the  Church  the  due  calculation  of  the  day  upon  which  Easter 
would  fall,  he  said :  "  I  thought  it  well  ...  to  put  down  in 
order  the  canonised  books  of  which  we  not  only  have  learned 
from  tradition  but  also  believe  [upon  the  evidence  of  our 
own  hearts?]  that  they  are  divine."  Here  we  have  nothing 
to  do  with  the  general  contents  of  Athanasius'  statement 
or  of  the  canon  of  the  Synod  of  Laodicea,  but  only  with  the 
technical  term.  Both  use  these  terms  canonical  or  canonise 
in  such  a  way  as  to  show  that  they  were  in  common  use, 
or  had  been  so  much  used  as  to  be  generally  understood.  It 
may  be  granted  that  even  if  a  reader  of  the  festal  letter  did 
not  happen  to  have  met  with  the  word  before,  he  would  have 
been  able  to  gather  its  meaning  from  this  letter  itself  without 
the  least  difficulty.  Nevertheless,  I  suppose  that  it  had  been 
used  before  quite  aside  from  the  Synod  of  Laodicea,  and  there- 
fore I  attribute  its  rise  in  this  sense  to  the  middle  of  the  century. 
Having  reached  this  use  of  the  word  for  the  Scriptures,  we 
must  ask  in  what  sense  they,  the  books  of  the  Bible,  were  called 
canonical,  for  the  word  has  two  meanings  that  look  in  opposite 
directions.  A  given  thing  might  be  canonical  because  something 
had  been  done  to  it,  that  is  to  say,  because  it  had  been  put  into 
the  canon,  or  it  might  be  canonical  because  it  had  in  and  of  itself 
a  certain  normative  character.  A  clergyman  was  called  canonical 
because  he  had  been  canonised,  or  in  other  words,  not  because 
he  had  been  a  saint  and  had  been  declared  to  be  a  saint,  but 
because  he  had  been  written  down  in  the  list,  the  canon,  let  us 
say,  the  table  of  contents  of  the  given  bishopric.  And  he  was 
also,  though  probably  only  later,  called  canonical  because  he  was 
one  of  those  who  were  bound  to  live  according  to  a  certain  rule 
or  canon.  What  was  the  case  with  a  book  of  the  Bible?  It 
seems  to  me  to  be  likely,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  we  have  no 


20  THE  CANON 

direct  testimony  to  the  custom  as  a  custom,  that  Christian 
scholars  and  bishops  before  the  time  of  Eusebius  were  in  the 
habit  of  making  hsts  of  the  books  that  they  included  in  the 
Scriptures.  There  is  one  such  list,  containing  some  of  the  books 
of  the  New  Testament,  of  which  we  have  a  fragment  in  the 
Muratorian  leaves,  and  it  may  be  as  early  as  the  year  170.  Aside 
from  that,  the  only  list  known  to  us  by  name  before  the  time  of 
Eusebius  is  one  containing  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament 
which  Melito,  the  bishop  of  Sardes  in  the  third  and  fourth 
quarters  of  the  second  century,  says  that  he  had  made ;  he  had 
gone  to  the  East  for  the  purpose  of  studying  scripture  history,  and 
made  the  list  of  the  Old  Testament  books  after  he  had  learned 
all  about  them.  It  may  then  well  be  the  case  that  at  least  in 
some  places  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  were  called 
canonical  because  they  had  been  added  to  such  a  list,  were  found 
in  such  lists.  Were  any  one  in  doubt  about  a  given  book,  he 
could  beg  the  bishop  to  tell  him  whether  or  not  it  stood  in  the 
list  or  canon.  The  use  of  the  word  in  this  sense  does  not  in  any 
way  preclude  its  having  been  used  in  the  other  sense.  It  is  in 
every  way  probable  that  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  at  first, 
and  then  later  also  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  at  an  early 
date,  came  to  be  called  canonical  in  the  sense  that  they  contain 
that  which  is  fitted  to  serve  as  a  measure  for  all  else,  and  in 
particular  for  the  determination  of  faith  and  conduct.  It  was  in 
connection  with  both  meanings,  but  especially  with  the  latter, 
that  the  thought  of  a  totally  finished  and  closed  up  collection  of 
books  was  attached  to  the  word,  and  that  this  thus  limited  series 
of  writings  was  called  the  canon  as  the  only  external  and  visible 
rule  of  truth.  Clement  of  Alexandria  had  mentioned  the  canon 
of  the  truth  without  binding  it  up  with  the  Scriptures.  Two 
centuries  later  Isidore  of  Pelusium  referred  to  "  the  canon  of  the 
truth,  the  divine  Scriptures." 


B.  The  Jewish  Canon 

In  order  to  secure  a  wide  basis  for  comparison,  it  would  be 
of  interest  to  the  Christian  student,  if  space  allowed,  to  look  at 
other  religions  and  ask  what  sacred  books  they  have,  and  in 
what   way  these   books   were   determined   to   be  sacred.      The 


INTRODUCTION— 5.   THE  JEWISH   CANON  21 

Brahmans  have  four  Vedas,  the  Rigveda,  the  Samaveda,  the 
Yajurveda,  and  the  Atharvaveda,  as  well  as  supplementary  parts 
called  Brahmanas.  The  canonical  works  are  the  first  three 
Vedas  with  their  sections  of  the  supplement.  These  were  given 
by  divine  revelation  and  are  therefore  called  "  hearing " ;  God 
spoke  and  men  listened.  Other  books  are  mere  traditions,  and 
are  called  "  memory  "  as  remembered  tradition.  The  Rigveda, 
containing  ten  books  with  1017  hymns,  is  supposed  to  date 
between  4000  and  2500  before  Christ.  Many  Brahmans  hold 
that  the  Vedas  were  pre-existent  in  the  mind  of  deity,  and 
therefore  explain  away  all  references  to  history  and  all  human 
elements. 

The  canon  of  the  Buddhists  is  different  in  different  places. 
The  canon  of  the  northern  Buddhists  appears  to  have  been 
determined  upon  in  their  fourth  council  at  Cashmere  in  the 
year  78  after  Christ,  or  four  hundred  and  two  years  after  the 
death  of  Buddha.  If  we  turn  to  the  late  centre  of  Buddhism  in 
Tibet,  where  it  found  acceptance  in  the  second  quarter  of  the 
seventh  century  after  Christ,  we  find  a  canon  of  104  volumes 
containing  1083  books;  this  is  named  Kanjur.  The  Tanjur 
supplements  it  with  225  (not  canonical)  volumes  of  commentary 
and  profane  matter.  The  collection  of  the  canonical  books  is 
so  holy  that  sacrifices  made  to  it  are  accounted  very  meritorious. 

In  Egypt  we  find  the  Book  of  the  Dead,  which  might  almost 
be  called  a  handbook  or  a  guide-book  for  departed  spirits, 
containing  the  needed  information  about  the  gods  and  the  future 
world.  It  is  called  the  canon  of  the  Egyptians;  but  there  is 
no  great  clearness  in  reference  to  the  book  in  general,  and 
its  canonicity  in  particular.  We  know  even  less  about  the 
Hermetical  Books,  which  are  attributed  to  the  god  Thoth  or 
Hermes  Trismegistos.  Clement  of  Alexandria  counted  forty-two 
of  them,  but  Seleucus  in  lamblichus  speaks  of  20,000,  and 
Manetho  of  36,525.  It  may  be  that  these  large  numbers  apply 
to  the  lines  contained  in  the  books ;  in  that  case  the  great 
difference  between  the  numbers  would  be  intelligible. 

Rome  honoured  the  Sibylline  books.  After  the  destruction, 
the  burning,  of  the  Capitol  in  the  year  83  before  Christ,  the  State 
ordered  the  books  of  the  fates  that  were  in  private  hands  to  be 
gathered  together  in  order  to  replace  the  old  books  that  had 
perished.     Copies  of  the  books  were  sought  for  all  around,  and 


22  THE  CANON 

especially  in  Asia  Minor.  It  is  said  that  above  two  thousand 
of  these  private  books  were  on  examination  rejected  and  burned 
as  worthless  imitations.  The  renewed  volumes  were  placed  in 
the  temple  of  the  Palatine  Apollo,  and  unfortunately  ruthlessly 
burned  by  Stilicho  in  the  fifth  century.  Here  the  notions  of 
inspiration  and  canonicity  do  not  seem  to  be  strongly  marked. 

The  Persian  Avesta,  as  we  have  it  to-day,  offers  a  mere 
fragment  of  the  original  work,  and  does  not  seem  to  be  sur- 
rounded by  a  special  halo  of  inspiration.  The  first  part,  called 
Jasna  or  Prayers,  contains,  among  other  matter,  five  Gathas  or 
hymns,  which  are  directly  attributed  to  Zarathustra  himself,  who 
lived  more  than  six  centuries  before  Christ. 

The  Koran  is  supposed  to  be  a  product  or  an  embodiment 
of  the  Divine  Being,  and  only  pure  and  believing  men  are  to  be 
allowed  to  touch  it.  It  is  uncreated.  It  lay  on  a  table  beside 
the  throne  of  God  written  on  a  single  scroll.  In  the  night 
Alkadar  of  the  month  Ramadan  Gabriel  let  it  down  into  the 
lowest  heaven,  and  it  was  imparted  to  Mohammed  bit  by  bit 
according  to  necessity.  Mohammed  caused  his  secretary  to 
write  it  down ;  and  he  kept  it,  not  in  any  special  order,  in  a  box. 
Later  it  was  edited,  rewrought  into  the  shape  in  which  we  have 
it  now. 

Before  we  leave  the  realm  of  myth  and  uncertainty  it  may 
be  well  to  recall  the  statement  of  the  Talmud,  that  the  law  of 
Moses  almost  equals  the  divine  wisdom,  and  that  it  was  created 
nine  hundred  and  seventy-four  generations  before  the  creation 
of  the  world,  or  a  thousand  generations  before  Moses. 

According  to  the  Jewish  tradition,  the  law,  the  Tora,  was 
written  by  Moses  himself,  even  the  last  eight  verses  about  his 
death.  Some  thought  that  it  was  put  by  God  directly  into  the 
hands  of  Moses,  and  that  either  all  at  once  or  book  by  book. 
Among  the  Jews,  questions  as  to  the  canonicity,  or  let  us  say 
as  to  the  authenticity,  and  authority  of  one  book  or  another 
have  been  much  discussed,  less,  however,  for  the  purpose  of 
laying  aside  the  book  suspected,  and  more  for  the  greater  glory 
of  the  successfully  defended  book.  A  curious  form  of  the 
debate  is  to  be  found  in  the  question  whether  the  book  treated 
of  soiled  the  hands.  If  it  did,  it  was  canonical.  If  not,  not. 
This  point  is  said  to  have  originated  in  the  time  of  the  ark,  and 


INTRODUCTION—/?.   THE  JEWISH  CANON  23 

to  have  been  devised,  that  is  to  say,  the  declaration  that  the 
canonical  writings  soiled  the  hands  was  devised  to  prevent 
people  and  prevent  priests  from  freely  handling  the  copy  of  the 
law  kept  in  the  ark. 

Three  classes  of  men  attached  especially  to  the  law,  the 
Sofrim  or  bookmen  or  scribes  or  the  Scripture  students,  the 
lawyers,  and  the  teachers  of  the  law,  the  rabbis.  Quotations 
from  the  Scriptures  were  introduced  by  the  formula :  "  It  is 
said,"  or,  "  It  is  written."  So  soon  as  the  Jews,  but  that  was  at 
a  late  day,  observed  that  the  copying  of  the  law  led  to  errors, 
they  instituted  a  critical  treatment  of  the  text,  trying  to  compel 
accuracy  of  copying.  They  counted  the  lines,  the  words,  and 
the  letters,  and  they  cast  aside  a  sheet  upon  which  a  mistake  had 
been  made. 

We  may  assume  that  some  written  documents  were  in  the 
hands  of  the  Israelites  from  the  time  of  Moses,  but  we  can  in 
no  way  define  them.  They  doubtless  included  especially  laws, 
and  then  as  an  accompaniment  traditions.  When,  however, 
we  speak  of  the  Israelites,  it  does  not  follow  that  all  existing 
documents  were  to  be  found  on  one  spot,  and  in  the  hands  of 
one  librarian  or  keeper  of  archives.  It  is  a  matter  of  course 
that  the  persons  first  to  care  for,  to  write,  and  keep  such 
documents  were  the  heads  of  families  and  the  priests.  Whether 
they  were  of  a  directly  legal  character  like  laws  and  ordinances, 
and  deeds  of  gift  or  purchase,  or  whether  they  were  of  a  more 
historical  description  like  accounts  of  the  original  ages  of  the 
tribes,  or  of  humanity,  the  recital  of  travel  and  of  wars,  and, 
above  all,  the  birth  lists  of  the  great  families, — it  is  a  matter  of 
course  that  the  persons  who  had  these  would  be  the  sheiks,  the 
old  men,  the  tribal  heads.  In  many  cases  such  a  man  in 
authority  will  have  had  his  priest,  who  will  at  the  same  time 
have  been  a  scribe,  as  a  proper  guardian  of  these  treasures.  In 
other  cases  the  sheik  will  have  been  his  own  priest  and  his  own 
keeper  of  the  rolls.  The  documents  will  then  have  been  largely 
local  and  of  a  limited  general  value.  But  it  will  have  been  a 
thing  of  common  knowledge  that  one  or  two  centres,  I  name 
Shiloh  as  a  likely  one,  were  possessed  of  particularly  good 
collections.  To  these  the  more  intelligent  will  have  applied  for 
copies  of  given  writings,  and  the  less  well  educated  for  informa- 
tion  about  their  history,  their  family,  and  their  rights.      It  is 


24  THE  CANON 

clear  that  in  Hosea's  day,  in  the  eighth  century  before  Christ, 
many  laws  held  to  be  divine  were  known,  even  though  he  does 
not  make  it  clear  to  us  just  what  laws  these  were.  And  the 
Second  Book  of  Kings  shows  the  high  authority  conceded  to 
the  law  at  the  time  of  Josiah,  in  the  last  quarter  of  the  seventh 
century,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  the  previous  disappearance  of 
the  law,  that  the  thought  of  its  having  been  forgotten  and  having 
needed  to  be  found  again,  gives  a  shock  to  those  who  would 
fain  believe  that  the  priests  and  all  the  laws  were  active  and 
in  force  in  all  their  vigour  and  extent  from  the  time  of  Moses 
onward.  We  may  date  the  authoritative  acceptance  of  the  five 
books  of  the  law,  or  if  anyone  prefers  to  put  it  differently,  the 
renewed  acceptance,  or  the  first  clearly  defined  acceptance  of 
that  whole  law,  at  the  time  of  Ezra,  about  the  middle  of  the 
fifth  century  before  Christ.  The  "front"  and  the  *'back"  pro- 
phets, or  the  historical  books  and  the  great  prophetical  works, 
may  have  been  determined  upon  soon  after  that  time,  although 
it  is  suggested  that  they  were  not  really  of  full  authority  before 
the  second  century  before  Christ.  We  do  not  know  about  it ; 
nothing  gives  us  a  fixed  date.  The  same  is  true  for  the  third 
part  of  the  Hebrew  Bible.  Book  after  book  in  it  seems  to  have 
been  taken  up  by  the  authorities,  who  now  can  have  been  none 
other  than  the  scribes  and  lawyers  in  Jerusalem.  Whether  the 
process  was  one  of  conscious  canonising  or  authorisation  from 
the  first  for  these  books,  or  whether  at  first  the  writings  were 
merely  collected  and  preserved  rather  than  authorised,  it  would 
be  hard  to  say.  The  latter  seems  probable.  So  far  as  can 
be  determined,  no  new  book  was  added  after  the  time  of  the 
Maccabees.  But  various  books  seem  to  have  been  called  in 
question  as  late  even  as  the  first  century  after  Christ. 

We  have  as  a  result  of  this  process,  in  describing  which  I 
have  used  the  word  canon  and  its  cognates  in  the  current  sense, 
an  Old  Testament  in  three  parts  :  Law,  Prophets,  Writings,  The 
third  part  received  then  in  Greek  the  name  "  Holy  Writings." 
It  is  important  for  us  at  this  point,  in  view  of  the  close  con- 
nection between  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New  Testament,  to 
ask :  What  is  the  definiteness  and  surety  of  the  work  of  making 
or  settling  the  canon  of  the  Old  Testament?  This  question  is 
of  all  the  greater  interest  because  the  time  of  the  commonly 
assumed  determination  of  the  canon  of  the  New  Testament  is 


INTRODUCTION—^.   THE  JEWISH   CANON  25 

not  separated  by  any  very  great  interval  from  the  last  of  the 
dates  above  mentioned.  Even  in  our  rapid  survey  of  the  field — ■ 
and  a  more  detailed  inquiry  would  only  have  made  the  uncer- 
tainties more  palpable — every  one  at  once  perceives  that  the 
authoritative  declarations  as  to  the  divine  origin  of  the  books 
leave  much  to  be  desired  for  those  who  are  accustomed  to  hear 
the  canon  of  the  Old  Testament  referred  to  as  if  it  were  as  firm 
as  a  rock  in  its  foundations.  We  do,  it  is  true,  find  a  massive 
declaration  for  the  acceptance  of  the  law,  in  part  in  the  seventh 
century,  in  part  and  finally  in  the  fifth  century  before  Christ. 
Yet  even  in  that  case  we  are  not  absolutely  sure  of  the  precise 
contents  of  the  law,  not  absolutely  sure  even  for  Ezra,  probable 
as  it  is  that  he  had  all  or  nearly  all  our  Pentateuch.  And  then 
what  a  gap  opens  between  the  period  of  Moses,  the  lawgiver, 
and  the  time  of  Ezra,  or  even  of  Josiah.  If  we  assume  that 
Moses  lived  about  the  year  1500,  and  that  Ezra  led  the  exiles 
back  to  Palestine  about  the  year  458  before  Christ,  a  thousand 
years  had  passed  between.  But  leave  that  point.  For  the 
second  part,  the  Prophets,  we  have  no  such  word  of  a  definite 
authoritative  proclamation  as  to  its  or  their  authenticity  and 
dominating  value.  And  for  the  third  part,  there  is  not  only  no 
word  of  an  official  declaration,  but  there  is  also  every  sign  and 
token  of  a  merely  casual,  gradual  taking  up  into  use  of  one  book 
after  another.  It  would  be  desirable,  were  it  possible,  to  inquire 
closely  into  the  special  sense  in  which  each  book  was  accepted, 
and  what  the  amount  of  divine  authority  was,  that  the  men 
accepting  it  attributed  to  it.  That  is  not  possible.  The  so-called 
canon  of  the  Old  Testament  is  anything  but  a  carefully  prepared, 
chosen,  and  guarded  collection  in  its  first  state.  If,  however, 
any  one  should  be  inclined  on  that  account  to  find  fault  with 
the  Jews,  we  must  remember  that  they  not  only  were  in  the 
work  of  "  canonising "  and  of  guarding  their  sacred  books  in 
those  early  times  far  superior  to  all  other  known  peoples,  but 
that  they  at  a  later  date  and  up  to  the  present  have  proved 
themselves  to  be  unsurpassed,  unequalled  preservers  of  tradition 
written  and  unwritten.  The  Christian  Church  owes  them  in 
this  respect  a  great  debt. 

The  glimpse  at  other  sacred  volumes  aside  from  the  Bible 
has  shown  us  that  our  collection  of  holy  books  is  more  concise, 
better   rounded   off,   and,  we  might  almost  venture  to  say  in 


26  THE  CANON 

advance  of  our  present  inquiry,  better  accredited  than  any  others, 
save  the  Koran.  But  it  has  also  made  it  plain  to  us  that  it  has 
not  been  the  custom  of  men  in  general  to  "canonise"  their 
sacred  books  by  a  set  public  announcement ;  that  sacred  books 
have,  on  the  contrary,  usually  found  recognition  at  first  only 
in  limited  circles,  and  have  afterwards  gradually  but  almost 
imperceptibly  or  unnoticed  passed  into  the  use  of  the  religious 
community  of  the  country.  It  will  be  necessary  to  bear  this  in 
mind  when  we  come  to  examine  the  testimony  for  the  divine  or 
ecclesiastical  authority  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament 


C.  Intercommunication  in  the  Roman  Empire. 

It  would  be  difficult  to  discuss  intelligently  the  question  of 
the  spread  and  general  acceptance  of  the  books  of  the  New 
Testament  among  the  Christians  of  the  various  lands  and 
provinces,  without  referring  to  the  possibilities  of  travel  then 
and  there.  Probably  the  majority  of  modern  people  who  turn 
their  thoughts  back  to  the  Roman  Empire  in  the  time  of  the 
apostles,  think  of  those  countries  and  their  inhabitants  as  to  a 
large  extent  unable  to  communicate  easily  and  rapidly  with  each 
other,  and  they  would  be  much  surprised  to  learn  that  aside 
from  railroads,  steamers,  and  the  electric  telegraph,  there  would 
be  little  to  say  in  favour  of  European  means  of  communication, 
that  a  Roman  in  Greece  or  Asia  Minor  or  Egypt  would  have 
been  able  to  travel  as  well  as  most  of  the  Europeans  who  lived 
before  the  year  1837.  It  is  to  be  granted  that  at  that  time  journeys 
to  China,  South  Africa,  and  North  America  were  not  customary. 
But  no  one  wished  to  go  to  these  then  unknown  or  all  but 
unknown  regions.  Nowadays  people  are  proud  to  think  that 
they  can  travel  or  have  travelled  all  over  the  world.  At  that 
time  many  people  travelled  pretty  much  all  over  the  world  that 
was  then  known.  At  the  time  of  Christ  the  known  world  was 
little  more  than  the  Roman  Empire.  We  might  describe  it  as 
the  shores  of  the  Mediterranean,  if  we  should  take  the  northern 
shores  to  include  the  inland  provinces  adjacent  to  the  provinces 
directly  on  the  seaboard.  That  would  carry  us  to  the  Atlantic 
Ocean  across  Gaul,  to  the  Black  Sea  across  Asia  Minor,  and  to 
the  Red  Sea  across  Egypt. 


INTRODUCTION— C   INTERCOMMUNICATION  2/ 

The  ease  of  intercourse  depended  in  a  large  measure  upon  the 
ships  of  the  Mediterranean.  If  the  sailors  then  disliked  winter 
voyages  between  October  and  March,  there  are  not  a  few  people 
to-day  who  avoid  the  sea  during  those  months  even  when  they 
can  find  luxurious  steamers  to  carry  them.  With  the  ships  that 
they  used  they  were  able  to  sail  very  fairly.  For  the  voyage  from 
Puteoli  to  Alexandria  only  twelve  days  were  necessary ;  and  if  the 
wind  were  good,  a  ship  could  sail  from  Corinth  to  Alexandria 
in  five  days.  The  journey  from  Rome  to  Carthage  could  be 
made  in  two  ways,  either  directly  from  Ostia  at  the  mouth  of 
the  Tiber,  and  that  was  a  trifle  over  300  miles  or  with  a 
good  wind  three  days, — or  by  land  350  miles  to  Rhegium 
(Reggio),  across  the  strait  an  hour  and  a  half  to  Messana, 
around  Sicily  to  Lilybaum  (to-day  Marsala),  and  then  with  a 
ship  in  twenty-four  hours  to  Carthage,  that  would  be  673  miles 
in  all.  From  Carthage  to  Alexandria  by  land  was  1221  miles. 
The  direct  journey  to  the  East  led  by  land  to  Brundusium 
(Brindisi),  from  which  a  ship  could  reach  Dyrrachium  in  a 
day  or  a  day  and  a  half.  From  Dyrrachium  the  road  passed 
through  Heraclea,  Edessa,  Bella,  Thessalonica,  Philippi,  and  on 
to  Byzantium  (now  Constantinople),  in  all  947  miles.  Starting  in 
the  same  way  and  turning  south  to  Athens  the  journey  would  be 
761  miles.  If  the  traveller  had  the  Asiatic  side  in  view  he 
could  in  Thrace  go  to  Gallipoli  and  in  an  hour  cross  over  to 
Lampsacus,  the  starting-point  for  Antioch  in  Syria.  From 
Antioch  he  could  go  east  to  the  Euphrates  or  south  to  Alexandria. 
From  Rome  to  Antioch  was  1529  miles,  from  Rome  to  the 
Euphrates  1592  miles,  from  Rome  to  Alexandria  2169  miles. 
If  a  traveller  chose,  he  could  go  all  the  way  to  Byzantium  by 
land,  going  north  and  around  by  Aquileia,  which  makes 
1 2 18  miles  for  the  trip.  On  the  west  from  Rome  to  Spain,  to 
Gades  was  1398  miles. 

The  shipping  came  later  to  be,  if  it  was  not  at  the  time  of 
which  we  have  to  speak,  to  a  great  extent  in  the  hands  of  certain 
companies,  although  not  named  as  Cunarders  or  Hamburg- 
Americans.  The  freight  ships  were  by  no  means  very  small,  and 
they  carried  large  cargoes  of  grain  with  the  most  punctual 
regularity.  From  Spain  they  brought  the  beautiful  and  spirited 
Spanish  horses  for  the  public  games ;  these  horses  were  so  well 
known  that  the  different  species  were  at  once  distinguished  by  the 


28  THE  CANON 

Romans,  who  adjusted  their  wagers  accordingly.  We  must  of 
necessity  suppose  that  the  freight  ships  also  carried  people,  the 
people  who  had  time,  and  especially  those  who  had  not  money 
to  pay  for  better  ships.  Paul's  journey  as  a  prisoner  from 
Caesarea  to  Rome  gives  us  a  good  example  of  a  freight  and 
passenger  boat,  and  shows  us  how  the  winter  affected  the 
voyage  and  the  voyagers.  The  quick  and,  of  course,  dearer 
passenger  carrying  trade  was  served  by  lightly  built  ships,  and 
these  fast  ships  will  have  certainly  been  often  more  adventurous 
than  the  freight  ships,  and  have  hugged  the  land  less.  Particular 
attention  seems  to  have  been  paid  to  the  ships  that  acted  as 
ferries  or  transfer  boats  on  the  great  lines  of  travel,  since  they  were 
necessary  to  the  use  of  the  roads.  For  example,  from  Brundusium 
to  Dyrrachmm,  from  Gallipoli  to  Lampsacus,  from  Rhegium  to 
Messana.  It  is  likely  that  frequent  vessels  passed  from  the 
western  coast  of  Asia  Minor  towards  the  north-west,  keeping  east 
of  Akte  (to-day  Mount  Athos),  and  reaching  behind  Thasos,  the 
harbour  of  Neapolis,  which  was  only  1 5  miles  from  Philippi. 

Everyone  has  heard  of  the  Roman  roads.  Beginning  at 
Rome,  they  stretched  through  the  whole  empire.  In  a 
newly  conquered  land  a  Roman  commander  or  civil  governor 
hastened  to  lay  out  and  to  order  the  work  on  the  roads  that 
would  be  adapted  to  give  the  troops  easy  access  to  all  parts  of 
the  country,  and  to  allow  of  the  utilising  of  the  products  of  the 
different  districts.  Traces,  remains,  of  such  roads  are  to  be  seen 
to-day  at  many  places  from  Scotland  to  Africa.  Augustus  had 
the  whole  empire  measured  by  Greek  geometers  or  civil  engineers, 
and  erected  in  the  Forum  at  Rome  the  central  pillar  from  which 
the  miles  were  counted  off  to  the  most  remote  regions.  Gains 
Gracchus,  123  before  Christ,  was  the  first  one  to  bring  forward 
a  law  to  set  milestones  at  every  thousand  paces.  The  principal 
distances  were  given  on  the  pillar  itself.  Besides  that,  Augustus 
caused  a  map  of  the  world  to  be  made  and  hung  up  in  a  public 
place,  a  map  based  on  those  measurements  and  on  Agrippa's 
commentaries  on  them.  Guide-books  or  lists  of  the  places,  and 
stations,  and  distances  on  the  roads  were  prepared  later ;  there 
may  very  well  at  once  have  been  copies  made  for  the  chief  roads. 
Greece  is  said  to  have  been  less  carefully  provided  with  roads, 
probably  owing  in  part  to  the  difficulty  of  making  roads  among 
the  mountains,  in  part  to  the  fact  that  the  inhabitants  in  general 


INTRODUCTION— C.   INTERCOMMUNICATION  29 

caused  no  great  trouble, — while  Corinth  and  Athens  were  easily 
to  be  reached, — and  in  part  to  the  circumstance  that  the  sea  was 
so  near  at  hand  that  the  roads  were  less  necessary. 

The  travel  on  these  roads,  as  on  our  roads  to-day,  was  of  four 
kinds,  on  wheels,  in  sedan-chairs  or  litters,  on  beasts,  and  on  foot. 
Seeing  that  the  roads  were  in  the  first  instance  made  for  the 
benefit  of  the  government,  the  officials  of  every  degree  had 
the  preference  on  the  roads.  They  often  acted  brutally  and 
barbarously  in  compelling  the  inhabitants  to  let  them  have 
their  horses  and  oxen  to  draw  waggons,  and  in  urging  these 
animals  to  greater  speed  ;  and  special  orders  were  issued  for- 
bidding all  such  acts.  Under  given  circumstances,  travellers,  and 
especially  those  in  the  public  service,  went  very  swiftly,  changing 
horses  at  every  station.  Caesar  rode  from  Rome  to  the  Rhone 
in  his  four-wheeled  travelling  carriage  in  about  eight  days, 
making  77  miles  a  day.  In  his  two-wheeled  light  carriage  he 
made  97  miles  a  day.  The  public  post  from  Antioch  to 
Constantinople  in  the  fourth  century  went,  including  stops,  in 
about  six  days,  about  4  miles  an  hour.  Private  persons  used, 
according  to  their  means,  private  carriages,  or  rode  on  horses, 
mules,  or  asses,  or  went  on  foot.  There  were  societies  that  let 
out  carriages  or  riding  horses  just  as  to-day.  The  foot  traveller 
was  more  independent  on  the  road  than  anyone  save  the  public 
officials. 

Not  infrequently  do  we  hear  modern  travel  spoken  of  as  if  it 
were  an  entirely  new  invention.  It  is  presupposed  that  in  the 
times  of  which  we  are  now  treating,  the  population  was  almost 
exclusively  man  after  man  tied  close  to  the  one  spot  on  which 
he  had  been  born.  This  conception  of  the  case  falls  wide  of  the 
mark.  A  very  large  number  of  people  were  often  under  way,  and 
many  were  never  long  at  rest.  We  have  had  occasion  to  refer 
more  than  once  to  officials  journeying.  The  condition  of  the 
Roman  Empire,  the  methods  by  which  the  lands  and  districts 
were  governed  and  were  kept  in  order  and  were  defended, 
required  a  constant  flow  of  soldiers,  of  officers,  of  officials  of 
every  rank  hither  and  thither.  These  persons  had,  so  far  as 
their  station  entitled  them  to  use  horses  and  carriages,  the  use 
of  the  imperial  post,  which  was  forbidden  to  private  persons. 
They  had  therefore  also  the  precedence  in  the  often  clashing 
claims  for  relays  at  the  stations,  and  in  the  choice  of  accommoda- 


30  THE  CANON 

tion  at  the  inns.     It  is   scarcely  necessary  to   urge   that   high 
officials  also  often  had  a  considerable   staff  of  assistants  or  a 
numerous  household  as  a  travelling  accompaniment.     If  these 
were  weighty  travellers  they  found  a  balance  in  the  other  extreme, 
in  the  actors  and   players  who  passed  from  place  to  place  to 
afford  the  people  diversion ;  doubtless  they  sometimes  associated 
themselves  closely  with  the  higher  and  wealthier  officials,  lighten- 
ing by  their  arts  the  cares  of  office,  or  amusing  and  thus  occupy- 
ing the  thoughts  of  the  populace  and  making  them  more  content 
with    the   government.     Precisely  as   to-day,  countless   invalids 
sought   health   far  from  home  at  baths,  at  healing  springs,  in 
milder  or  in  cooler  climes,  and  that  not  merely  the  wealthy,  but 
also  many  a  poor  man.     Rich  Romans  made  excursions  to  their 
possessions  in  Gaul,  in  Spain,  in  Africa,  and  sometimes  took  a 
crowd  of  friends  with  them  as  well  as  a  host  of  servants.     Others 
travelled  to  see  the  peculiarities  or  the  beauties  of  foreign  peoples 
and  foreign  landscapes.     Some  went  to  consult  oracles.     Work- 
men went  in  numbers  hither  and  thither,  now  driven  like  the 
wandering  apprentice  by  the  thirst  for  further  knowledge  of  the 
secrets  of  their  handiwork,  now  sent  out  by  the  rich  at  Rome 
or  sent  for  by  the  rich  abroad  to  ply  their  skilful  arts  in  city 
houses  or  country  houses  in  the  provinces  or  in  distant  lands. 
Manufacturers,  if  we  may  use  the  term  for  those  who  rose  above 
the  level  of  the  mere  workman,  also  went  from  place  to  place, 
sometimes  on  compulsion,  like  Priscilla  and  Aquila  who  had  to 
leave    Rome,  sometimes  of  their  own  will,  to  wit  the  journey 
which  we  may  presuppose  that  Prisca  and  Aquila  made  previously 
to  Rome,  and  their  journey  from  Corinth  to  Ephesus.    They  were 
doubtless  part  makers  and  part  sellers  of  tent  cloth  from  camels' 
hair.     Paul's  own  case  is  like  that  of  the  workmen,  and  he  may 
at  Corinth  really  have  worked  for  Prisca  and  Aquila.     It  is  not 
at  all  unlikely  that  he  answered,  or  that  he  would  have  answered, 
an  inquisitive  policeman  on  reaching  Corinth,  that  the  purpose 
of  his  coming  was  to  work  at  his  trade  in  the  bazaar.     Reference 
to  his  mission  would  have  been  as  unintelligible  as  it  would  have 
been  suspicious  in  reply  to  such  an  official.    Of  course,  merchants 
travelled.     Many  of  them  went  with  their  goods  on  ships,  others 
will  have  travelled  by  land,  carrying  their  boxes  and  bales  on 
waggons,  on  beasts,  or  on  the  backs  of  their  slaves.     An  inscrip- 
tion tells  us  of  a    merchant  in    Hierapolis  who  travelled  from 


INTRODUCTION— C.   INTERCOMMUNICATION  3 1 

Asia  Minor  to  Italy  seventy-two  times.  And  learning  will  have 
caused  many  a  journey.  Teachers  went  hither  and  thither  to 
gather  new  classes  of  pupils,  themselves  gaining  in  wisdom  by 
their  new  experiences.  And  students  sought  at  Alexandria,  at 
Athens,  at  Antioch,  at  Tarsus,  or  at  Rome  itself  the  teachers 
needed  for  their  special  subjects.  Paul  went  to  sit  at  the  feet 
of  Gamaliel  at  Jerusalem,  and  when  he  later  went  to  Tarsus,  his 
birthplace,  again,  it  is  likely  that  he  visited  the  university. 

The  things  shipped  from  and  to  a  land  afford  an  insight  into 
an  important  part  of  its  relations  to  other  lands,  and  show  how 
easily  or  with  how  much  difficulty  men  and  writings  could  pass 
from  one  country  to  the  other.  It  will  suffice  to  limit  ourselves 
to  Palestine,  for  that  is  our  centre.  Tunny-fish  were  brought 
thither  from  Spain,  and  Egyptian  fish  also,  I  suppose  from  the 
Nile.  Persia  supplied  certain  nuts.  Beans  and  lentils  came 
from  Egypt.  Grits  were  sent  from  Cilicia,  Paul's  province. 
Greece  sent  squashes.  The  Egyptians  sent  mustard.  Edom 
was  the  source  for  vinegar.  Bithynia  furnished  cheese.  Media 
was  the  brewery  for  beer.  Babylon  sent  sauces.  Greece  and 
Italy  sent  hyssop,  it  is  said; — why  this  plant  was  sought  from 
afar  I  do  not  know ;  perhaps  it  was  a  particular  species.  Cotton 
came  from  India.  So  much  for  the  imports.  A  word  as  to  the 
exports  of  this  little  country.  The  Lake  of  Tiberias  produced 
salted  and  pickled  fish ;  the  town  Taricheae  was  the  "  Pickelries." 
Galilee  was  celebrated  for  its  linen.  And  Judea  supplied  wool 
and  woollen  goods ;  Jerusalem  had  its  sheep  market  and  its 
wool  market. 

This  brief  review  makes  it  plain  that  the  period  before  us  is 
one  of  continual  movement  in  all  directions.  For  the  spread  of 
Christianity  and  for  the  subsequent  widespread  scattering  abroad 
of,  and  the  universal  acceptance  of  the  cherished  literature  of  the 
early  Christians,  this  journeying  and  sending  of  men  and  of  goods 
from  one  end  of  the  empire  to  the  other  could  not  but  be  of  the 
greatest  importance.  Quite  aside  from  the  actual  travel  and 
the  actual  traffic,  the  mental  attitude  of  men  was  one  of  calm 
consideration  of,  and  not  of  suspicion  or  flashing  hatred  towards, 
all  that  came  from  another  country. 


32  THE  CANON 


D.    BOOKMAKING    OF    OlD. 


In  considering  the  fates  and  fortunes  of  books,  it  is  important 
to  ask  how  they  were  made.  Here  we  may  touch  upon  a  few 
points  bearing  more  upon  the  criticism  of  the  canon.  Other  points 
will  come  up  in  connection  with  the  criticism  of  the  text.  In 
many  cases  those  who  speak  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament 
pay  little  regard  to  this  matter.  They  discuss  it  almost  as  if  they 
thought  that  books  were  then  produced,  multiplied,  bought  and 
sold  much  as  they  are  to-day.  This  is  the  less  blameworthy 
from  the  circumstance  that  the  history  of  these  things  has  thus 
far  been  much  neglected,  and  that  the  sources  for  the  history  in 
Greek  circles  are  still  largely  a  thing  of  conjecture,  not  well- 
known  and  carefully  studied  documents.  We  know  much  more 
about  Latin  than  about  Greek  bookmaking.  Our  information 
touching  Greek  work  in  this  line  must  be  searched  for  in  the 
byways  and  hedges  of  ancient  Greek  literature,  in  chance 
observations  made  in  some  important  historical  or  theological  or 
philosophical  writings,  and  in  the  bindings  and  on  the  fly-leaves 
of  old  books.  Bearing  in  view  the  difficulty  of  finding  the 
materials  for  a  judgment,  we  shall  not  be  surprised  to  learn  that 
opinions  upon  this  topic  go  to  one  of  two  extremes.  Some 
seem  to  suppose  that  books  at  that  time,  and  especially  among 
the  Christians,  could  only  be  made,  this  is  to  say,  written,  with 
great  difficulty  and  at  large  expense.  They  think  of  books  at 
that  day  as  exceedingly  rare  and  dear.  Others  swing  the 
pendulum  to  the  opposite  point,  and  declare  that  books  were 
then  as  plenty  as  grass  in  the  East ;  the  figure  would  perhaps  be 
near  the  truth  for  one  who  should  reflect  upon  the  meagre 
herbage  of  those  dry  regions.  Applying  this  to  Christians  and 
to  the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  we  are  on  the  one  hand 
liable  to  hear  that  these  books  were  seldom  in  the  hands  of  any 
but  the  wealthy  and  were  at  no  time  existent  in  great  numbers, 
or  on  the  other  hand  that  families,  to  say  nothing  of  Churches, 
— that  families  and  individual  Christians  were  in  a  position  to  get 
and  keep  and  use  freely  the  sacred  writings. 

Nothing  would  be  more  dangerous  than  a  too  free  generali-- 
sation  here.  Time  and  place  varied  the  circumstances.  Time 
came  into  play,  for  the  Christians  were  at  first  largely  poor  and 
largely   or    often    viewed    with    distrust   and    dislike    by   their 


INTRODUCTION— Z).   BOOKMAKING  33 

neighbours,  and  would  therefore  not  be  in  a  position  to  have 
books  made  for  them  easily.  At  a  later  date,  when  more  and 
more  people  gathered  around  the  preachers  and  the  Christian 
Churches  grew  apace,  when  the  Christians  began  to  be  drawn 
more  from  the  better  educated  classes  and  to  have  a  wider 
acquaintance  with  literature  and  a  greater  facility  in  literary 
methods,  and  when  they  had  secured  for  themselves  from  their 
heathen  surroundings  rather  respectful  tolerance  or  even  admira- 
tion than  ill-confidence  and  disdain,  they  certainly  could  and 
undoubtedly  did  order  and  use  more  books.  That  the  place, 
however,  must  be  considered  is  a  matter  of  course.  That  is  true 
even  to-day  in  spite  of  all  printing  presses  and  publishing  houses. 
In  large  cities,  and  in  particular  in  cities  like  Antioch,  Tarsus, 
Alexandria,  in  which  many  scholars  taught  and  learned,  studied 
and  wrote,  books  could  be  easily  and  quickly  gotten.  And  in 
such  cities,  among  scholars  of  various  climes,  tongues,  opinions, 
religions,  and  habits,  scribes  would  busy  themselves  less  with  an 
inquisitorial  consideration  of  their  customers,  and  be  at  once 
ready  to  copy  any  sheet,  any  book  placed  in  their  hands.  In 
the  provinces,  in  small  towns  and  villages,  in  out  of  the  way 
places  it  must  have  been  usually  difficult,  very  often  impossible, 
to  get  books,  impossible  to  have  them  made.  That  does  not 
imply  that  people  there  could  neither  write  nor  read,  ignorant 
indeed  of  these  arts  as  the  majority  of  them  may  have  been. 
But  there  was  a  difference  between  writing  a  private  letter  or  a 
business  letter  and  a  bill,  and  writing  a  book.  The  difference 
was  similar  to  that  found  to-day  between  the  usual  writers  in 
private  life  and  in  business  circles,  and  the  art-writers  who  prepare 
beautiful  diplomas  and  testimonials  for  anniversaries. 

In  large  towns  the  methods  for  the  multiplication  of  writings 
that  were  used  for  profane  books  often  could  be  and  probably 
sometimes  were  appHed  to  the  books  of  the  New  Testament, 
and  that  especially  as  time  progressed  during  the  third  and  the 
opening  fourth  century.  We  have  no  exact  information  upon 
this  point,  and  we  are  therefore  left  to  conjecture.  I  am  inclined 
to  think  that  the  usual  bookmaking  methods  were  seldom  used 
by  Christians.  It  does  not  seem  to  me  to  be  likely  that  a 
heathen  bookseller  would,  as  a  rule,  apply  himself  with  any  great 
interest  to  the  multiplication  of  Christian  writings.  The  reasons 
that  lead  me  to  this  conclusion  are  the  following : 
3 


34  THE  CANON 

(a)  It  is  worth  while  to  cast  a  glance  at  the  general  position 
of  the  Christians.  It  is  true  that  antique  life,  modified  by  the 
climate  of  those  southern  lands,  was  to  a  far  greater  extent  than 
life  in  northern  Europe  to-day  spent  before  the  eyes  of  other  and 
often  strange  men.  The  Italian  in  Naples  carrying  on  his  trade 
on  the  sidewalk,  or  in  a  shed,  or  booth,  or  room  opening  with  its 
whole  front  upon  the  street,  is  a  fair  type  of  the  Eastern  tradesman. 
In  consequence,  the  life  of  the  Christians  in  the  East  was  to  a 
large  measure  a  public  life,  a  life  seen  and  known  of  men.  But 
they  were  nevertheless  for  long  decades  in  many  places  not 
openly  acknowledged  and  recognised  as  Christians.  Here  and 
there,  doubtless  often,  they  met  with  tolerance  and  forbearance 
or  even  good  treatment  from  the  hands  of  their  neighbours  and 
of  the  authorities  of  the  district,  town,  or  city.  That,  however, 
cannot  screen  the  fact  that  they  will  in  general  have  found  it 
prudent  and  often  strictly  necessary  to  keep  the  signs  of  their 
faith  in  the  background,  not  to  allow  them  to  attract  open  notice 
when  it  was  possible  to  avoid  doing  so.  For  this  reason,  then, 
Christians  will  in  many  places  have  refrained  from  applying  to 
heathen  scribes  to  copy  the  books  of  the  New  Testament. 

{b)  The  last  phrase  brings  an  important  point.  It  would  not 
be  impossible  that  a  scribe  should  become  a  Christian.  But  we 
may  be  sure  that,  as  a  rule,  directly  in  connection  with  their  daily 
bread, — remember,  we  have  to  do  with  book  scribes  not  with 
everyday  letter  writers, — they  will  have  been,  and  have  been 
inclined  to  remain,  heathen.  Their  work  was  the  copying  of 
heathen  books.  They  copied  for  a  living,  it  is  true,  and  may 
often  have  not  hesitated  to  take  up  Christian  books.  Never- 
theless, they  may  well  have  preferred  the  heathen  books  that  they 
knew  and  liked,  especially  if  they  were  writers  of  "  known  "  and 
not  in  general  of  "  new  "  books.  Then,  too,  the  Christians  may 
have  hesitated  to  let  heathen  scribes  copy  the  writings  because 
they  were  so  much  prized  by  them,  may  have  hesitated  to  place 
them  before  the  eyes  and  in  the  hands  of  men  who  would  despise 
and  scoff  at  these  precious  books.  And  this  hesitancy  will  not 
seldom  have  been  rendered  greater  by  the  fear  that  these  scribes 
could  for  lewd  gain  denounce  them  to  the  authorities  as  the 
possessors  of  forbidden  books,  and  give  over  the  books  into  the 
hands  of  their  enemies. 

{c)  It  must,  in  connection  with  the  last  sentence,  be  borne 


INTRODUCTION— Z*.   BOOKMAKING  35 

in  mind  that  although  these  books  were  sacred  books,  books 
held  in  particular  honour  by  a  certain  number  of  men,  they 
were  in  those  days  not  in  the  least  public  books.  These  two 
considerations  were  of  moment,  in  particular,  before  the  close  of 
the  first  quarter  of  the  fourth  century.  Let  us  pass  beyond  that 
date. 

(d)  After  the  greater  influx  of  members  in  the  early  years 
of  the  fourth  century,  there  probably  were  enough  self-denying 
Christians  at  command  who  were  able  to  write  a  book  hand, 
and  therefore  to  copy  the  Christian  books.  It  is  to  be  re- 
gretted that  Eusebius,  who  caused  fifty  large  manuscripts  of 
the  Bible  to  be  copied  for,  at  the  command  of,  the  Emperor 
Constantine,  does  not  tell  us  to  what  scribes  he  entrusted 
the  work.  Had  he  been  in  Constantinople,  in  Constantine's 
town  as  they  then  began  to  name  it,  we  should  have  turned 
our  eyes  to  the  regular  book  trade.  For  it  is  very  likely 
that  with  the  accession  of  Christianity  to  the  throne  many 
a  public  scribe,  many  a  bookseller  would  have  been  led  to 
embrace  it,  to  take  upon  him  the  name  that  was  no  longer  a 
badge  of  disgrace,  but  had  become  a  claim  to  preferment.  In 
Caesarea  the  case  is  different.  It  was,  it  is  true,  a  large  city,  and 
would  have  had  at  least  some  public  scribes.  But  we  must 
remember  that  we  have  positive  knowledge  of  Christian  scholar- 
ship here.  C^sarea  had  long  been  a  centre  of  interest  for 
Christian  theologians,  and  had  about  a  century  before  sheltered 
the  great  Origen  within  its  walls.  He  received  there  his  ordina- 
tion as  presbyter,  and  when  the  fanatical  Bishop  of  Alexandria 
attacked  him,  he  settled  in  Csesarea  and  gathered  many  pupils 
around  him.  These  Christians  had  a  large  library  there,  and  we 
have  in  various  manuscripts  references  to  books  in  that  library. 
Putting  these  things  together,  it  seems  fair  to  suppose  that 
Eusebius  had  in  his  town  Christian  scholars  at  command,  and 
Christian  scribes,  to  write  the  fifty  sacred  volumes.  Should  any 
one  say  that  the  size  of  the  probable  school  and  the  cultivation 
of  the  Christians  there  probably  rendered  the  work  of  these 
Christian  scribes  a  thoroughly  well-appointed  and  business-like 
institution,  not  very  different  from  and  not  inferior  to  the 
establishments  of  profane  booksellers,  I  shall  at  once  concede 
the  point.  If  I  am  not  mistaken,  that  is  precisely  the  reason 
why  Constantine  ordered  the  books  for  his  proud  capital  in  that 


36  THE  CANON 

distant  town  in  Palestine.  He  had  doubtless  made  inquiries, 
and  had  learned  that  Eusebius  not  only  had  in  the  library  of  his 
deceased  bosom  friend  Pamphilos,  whose  name  he  had  added  to 
his  own,  the  finest  known  copies,  the  most  accurately  written 
copies,  of  the  Bible,  but  that  he  also  had  at  his  command  in  his 
neighbourhood,  and  probably  within  the  precincts  of  his  episcopal 
residence,  of  the  houses  and  grounds  attached  to  his  own  palace, 
the  best  scribes  that  were  to  be  found  in  all  that  region.  If 
these  surmises  come  near  to  the  truth,  that  large  book  order  on 
the  part  of  the  emperor  is  likely  to  have  made  that  scriptorial 
establishment,  that  book-house,  still  more  celebrated,  and  to  have 
led  to  other  orders  of  a  less  imposing  extent.  That  is,  so  far  as 
I  can  recall,  the  only  case  in  early  times  in  which  we  hear  so 
directly  about  the  making  of  Christian  books,  and  therefore,  to 
return  to  our  point  respecting  the  matter  in  general,  we  can  only 
say  that  we  have  no  knowledge  of  any  business  man,  of  any 
bookseller  who  occupied  himself  especially  with  making  Bibles 
or  New  Testaments  or  single  books  out  of  the  New  Testament. 
Perhaps  some  scholar  will  one  day  find  in  an  old  manuscript  new 
information  on  this  subject. 

Whatever  may  have  been  the  real  facts  in  earlier  days, 
however  near  our  guesses  may  come  to  the  true  state  of  the  case, 
we  know  certainly  that  at  a  later  date  the  copying  of  the  books 
of  the  New  Testament  was  a  part  of  the  work  of  ecclesiastics  and 
of  monks.  Of  the  many,  many  volumes  which  contain  a  de- 
scription of  the  position  of  the  scribe  who  copied  them,  by  far 
the  larger  number  were  from  the  classes  named.  In  a  great 
number  of  manuscripts  the  scribe  is  said  to  be  just  upon  the 
point  of  becoming  a  monk.  This  remark  is  found  so  often  that 
I  am  inclined  to  think  that  frequently  it  must  have  been  the  rule 
for  a  novice  who  was  at  the  end  of  his  probation  and  was 
approaching  his  tonsure  as  monk,  to  copy  a  part  of  the  Bible, 
certain  books  of  the  New  Testament,  as  a  token  of  his  proficiency 
in  external  letters  and  of  his  devotion  to  the  sacred  volume. 


E.  What  we  Seek. 

Setting  aside  for  the  moment  our  preliminary  considerations 
touching  the  existence  of  a  canon,  it  is  pertinent  at  this  point 


INTRODUCTION— £.   WHAT  WE  SEEK  37 

to  try  to  define  in  detail  what  we  must  seek  for.  We  are  about 
to  enter  upon  the  field  of  early  Christian  history.  What  do  we 
wish  to  look  for  in  this  field?  We  are  not  concerned  now  to 
examine  the  piety  of  the  members  of  the  various  rising  Christian 
societies.  We  are  not  going  to  ask  in  what  rooms  they  held 
their  meetings.  We  are  not  intending  to  find  out  how  they 
appointed  their  leaders.  All  these  things,  and  a  great  many 
other  things  in  themselves  equally  weighty  and  interesting,  must 
now  remain  untouched.     Three  objects  call  for  our  attention. 

We  must  in  applying  ourselves  to  a  view  of  the  early  Church, 
inquire  for  traces  of  th^^^stgnce  of  the  hoQl^s  that  we  have 
in  our  New  Testament  to-day.  It  is  the  existence  that  is  first 
to  be  sougTit  for,"some  sign  that  the  given  book  is,  and  if  possible 
that  it  is  at  a  given  place.  In  advance  an  ignorant  man  might 
take  it  for  granted  that  no  book  could  possibly  be  used  by  the 
Church  without  having  been  previously  or  at  the  time  in  question 
made  the  object  of  a  rigid  examination,  and  without  a  minute 
having  been  entered  into  the  documents  of  the  Church  with 
regard  to  the  said  book.  But  the  Christians  of  that  day  were 
not  so  critically  inclined  as  that  would  indicate.  At  the  very 
first  there  are  no  tokens  of  anything  of  that  kind.  In  con- 
sequence we  must  be  content  with  less  cle^ar  evidence.  We 
must  search  in  the  literaturs^of  the  Church — we  should  search 
just  as  eagerly  jn_pro.fan£_iiteraturelPthere  were  anything  to  be 
found  in  it — for  signs  that  these  books  have  been  used  even 
without  their  having  been  alluded  to  by  name.  A  later  treatise 
might  show  or  seem  to  show  by  the  things  spoken  of  in  it  that 
the  author  of  it  had  read  some  book  now  in  the  New  Testament. 
He  might  lean  towards  or  lean  upon  the  material  given  in  it. 
In  some  cases  it  might  be  possible  to  show  by  his  style  that 
he  had  used  the  said  book.  It  is  unnecessary  to  press  the 
warning  not  to  judge  too  hastily  in  a  matter  like  this.  The 
differences  between  use  and  non-use  are  sometimes  extremely 
hard  to  be  detected.  A  second  stage  in  this  inquiry  after  the 
existence  of  the  books  is  the  search  for__quotaliQns  from  them, 
quotations  giving  their  vej-y  words  but  not  mentioning  their 
tiamesT,  Here  the  thing  seems  to  be  and  really  is  much  clearer. 
Yet  even  here  great  caution  is  needed,  since  sentences  some- 
times appear  to  be  similar  to  each  other  or  practically  identical, 
which  prove  on  closer  examination  to  have  no  direct  connection 


38  THE  CANON 

with  each  other.  The  words  may  be  from  a  third,  a  previous 
writing,  or  they  may  be  a  saying  that  was  long  current  in  various 
circles  before  the  words  with  which  we  compare  them  were 
written.  The  third  and  satisfactory  stage  of  the  search  after 
proofs  of  the  existence  of  the  books,  is  the  search  for  direct 
mention  of  the  Jbooks  by  name.  A  mention  by  name,  particularly 
if  it  be  accompanied  by  a  clear  quotation  from  the  text  of  the 
book,  is  the  best  evidence  that  we  can  ask  for.  Of  course,  we 
should  be  on  our  guard  lest  the  name  should  be  an  interpolation 
by  a  later  writer  who  had  been  led  or  misled  by  the  real  or  only 
apparent  quotation.  It  is  plain  that  these  three  stages  in  the 
inquiry  for  tokens  of  the  existence  of  the  books  are  not  to  be 
conceived  of  as  only  possible  of  separate  consecutive  examination, 
looking  in  each  single  book  first  for  the  one  and  then  for  the 
other  stage.  In  taking  up  a  later  book  we  may  find  first  of 
all  the  third  and  highest  stage  of  the  evidence.  We  should, 
however,  in  spite  of  that  examine  the  whole  document,  seeking 
as  well  for  the  other  two  less  important  stages  as  corroborative 
evidence. 

The  second  object  for  attention,  proved  or  conceded  the 
existence  of  the  books,  is  the  search  for  signs  of  an  especial 
valuation  of  these  books  on  the  part  of  Christians,  and,  if  that 
may'Be'distinguished,  on  the  part  of  authorised  or  authoritative 
Christians,  men  of  a  certain  eminence.  Here  we  may  place  five 
kinds  of  evidence  before  our  minds.  The  first  kind  would  be 
the  discovery  that  these  books  of  the  New  Testament  or  that 
any  one  of  them  is  in  literary  use  preferred  to  other  books  not 
in  our  New  Testament.  We  might  find,  for  example,  that  they 
in  case  of  quotation  were  particularly  emphasised,  that  they 
were  more  frequently  mentioned  and  treated  with  greater  respect 
than  other  books,  that  thev  were  spoken  of  as  if  they  might 
claim  for  themselves  a  special  authority.  Here  we  are  again, 
as  we  were  at  the  first  stage  of  the  previous  inquiry,  looking  for 
something  that  may  perhaps  sometimes  be  rather  felt  than 
directly  seen,  may  lie  in  a  turn  of  a  sentence  and  not  in  a  direct 
statement.  The  second  kind  of  evidence  is  that  which  in  some 
way  shows  that  these  books  were  settled  upon  as  worthy  of,  or 
were  designated  directly  for,  being  read  by  Christians  in  private 
life  for  their  instruction,  for  their  edification,  or  for  their  comfort 
and  consolation.     The   third   kind   of  evidence   is  that  which 


INTRODUCTION— J5.   WHAT  WE  SEEK  39 

proves  their  designation  for  public  use  in  church.  The  weight 
of  the  evidence  for  this  point  must  be  characterised  more  closely. 
The  difference  between  books  for  private  reading  and  those  for 
public  use  will  be  plain  by  a  moment's  comparison  with  books 
of  to-day.  To  take  an  extreme  example,  it  would  be  quite 
conceivable  that  a  clergyman  should  recommend  to  a  parishioner 
to  read  a  certain  novel  of  a  specifically  Christian  tendency ;  it 
would  not  be  conceivable  that  he  should  read  this  novel  before 
the  congregation.  There  is  nothing  double-tongued  or  hypo- 
critical in  this.  The  clergyman  knows,  on  the  one  hand,  that 
the  person  advised  is  capable  of  judging  aright  of  the  contents 
of  the  book,  whilst  he  could  not  know  who  might  hear  and 
misunderstand  it  in  the  public  assembly.  But,  on  the  other 
hand,  he  also  knows  that  the  Church  by  ancient  custom  admits 
no  such  literature  to  a  place  in  the  services.  The  fourth  kind 
of  evidence  is  that  which  places  these  books  upon  the  same  level 
as  the  bonks  of-4he  Old  Testament.  The  importance  of  this 
point  is  clear.  The  books  of  the  Old  Testament — we  are  not 
able  to  say  precisely  which  ones  book  for  book — were  accepted 
by  the  early  Christians  as  in  a  peculiar  way  given  by  God  to 
the  Jews  and  through  them  to  the  Church.  They  were  accepted 
as  the  one  authoritative  collection  of  documents  revealing  to 
men  the  mind  of  God.  It  must  here  be  expressly  stated  that 
we  have  not  the  least  indication  that  the  early  Christians  were 
in  any  way  inclined  to  inquire  closely  into  the  origin  and  authority 
of  the  religious  books  in  their  hands.  Their  attitude  towards 
certain  books  not  a  part  of  the  Old  Testament  proper  goes  to 
show  either  that  the  Old  Testament  was  then  scarcely  clearly 
defined  in  its  third  division,  or  that  the  Christians  freely  used 
other  books  as  equal  to  those  in  that  third  division.  But  this 
concession  does  not  in  the  least  alter  the  value  of  the  point  we 
have  now  in  view.  It  is  for  us  of  the  greatest  moment  if  we 
can  show  that,  or  when  we  can  show  that,  a  book  was  considered 
as  on  a  par  with  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament.  The  fifth 
and  last  kind  of  evidence  is  that  which  directly  calls  these  books* 
ca^ionical  or  declared  them  to  be  among  the  number  of  the 
canomged-books.  Just  what  that  may  mean  is  a  topic  for  later 
consideration  after  we  have  reached  that  point. 

At  the  first  glance  it  might  seem  as  if  that  were  all  that  we 
had  to  do,  as  if  no  further  steps  were  necessary  to  place  the 


40  THE  CANON 

books  of  the  New  Testament  upon  their  proper  and  firm  basis 
of  clear  history,  always  supposing  that  we  succeeded  in  finding 
the  best  of  the  evidences  just  described.  But  this  is  not  all. 
If  we  stopped  at  this  point  the  favorers  and  furtherers  of  what 
they  call  "  the  New  Testament  outside  of  the  received  canon " 
might  come  to  us  and  claim  that  these  books  were  in  possession 
of  precisely  the  same  evidence  as  that  which  we  have  discovered 
in  the  case  of  the  New  Testament  books.  Now  we  have  indeed 
said  at  the  outset  that  the  books  just  referred  to  have  no  proper 
place  in  New  Testament  introduction,  and  that  still  holds  good. 
But  it  is  in  no  way  possible  to  avoid  an  inquiry  calculated  directly 
either  to  confirm  or  to  annul  the  claim  of  these  other  writings 
to  be  a  part  of  the  New  Testament.  This  leads,  then,  to  the 
third  object  that  claims  our  attention.  We  have  sought  after 
signs  of  a  special  valuation  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament. 
Are  signs  of  such,  of  an  ec^uaj^^^aluation  to  be  found  for  any 
other  writings  belonging  to  the__ear1y  period  ni'  C.hri^Uci^tff 
And  if  tokens  of  certain  such  signs  can  be  pointed  out  for  other 
writings,  have  we  other  evidence,  tokens  of  an  opposite  character 
which  force  the  conclusion  that  these  writings  are  nevertheless 
finally  not  to  be  considered  as  equal  in  authority  to  those  of  the 
New  Testament  ?  Here  we  have  to  ask  about  other  books,  then, 
the  same  questions  as  before,  touching  the  way  in  which  they 
are  quoted,  whether  they  are  named  for  private  reading  or  for 
public  services,  and  whether  they  are  placed  in  conjunction  with 
the  Old  Testament.  Should  we  find  that  some  of  the  ques- 
tions must  be  answered  in  the  affirmative,  we  must  then  inquire 
whether  the  given  books  were  in  any  way  thereafter  so  treated 
as  to  show  that  these  previous  signs  were  not  of  a  general 
and  authoritative  value.  We  may  find  that  they  were  definitely 
distinguished  by  official  statement  from  the  books  of  the  New 
Testament.  The  fact  that  they  must  be  thus  put  aside  places 
clearly  before  our  eyes  how  very  near  they  must  have  been  to 
the  New  Testament.  No  one  would  need  to  say  that  Homer 
was  not  a  part  of  the  New  Testament.  We  may  find  that  they 
are  termed  apocryphal.  That  word  was  originally  one  of  respect. 
It  pointed  to  a  book  containing  a  secret  doctrine  but  a  lofty 
one,  a  matter  that  was  too  hard,  too  deep,  too  high  for  the 
common  run  of  men,  something  that  was  only  adapted  to  the 
initiated.     As  time  went  on  the  Christians   came  to  a  clearer 


INTRODUCTION— ii.   WHAT   WE  SEEK  4 1 

vision,  and  formed  the  opinion  that  these  books,  supposed  to  be 
so  peculiarly  valuable,  were  in  reality  much  less  valuable  than 
the  books  of  the  Church  that  were  not  apocryphal.  Therefore 
they  used  the  word  apocryphal  at  that  later  day  as  a  term  for 
books  that  were  not  what  they  purported  to  be,  were  not  genuine, 
w^ere  not  in  the  least  as  good  as  the  publicly  known  and  used 
writings.  It  will  be  our  duty  to  examine  the  case  carefully,  and 
to  decide  whether  or  not  we  can  approve  of  what  they  did. 

These  three  inquiries  exhaust  in  general  our  task  in  regard 
to  the  early  ages  of  the  Church.  In  pursuit  of  them  we  must 
endeavour  as  far  as  possible  to  distinguish  between  different 
times  and  as  well  between  different  places.  Four  warnings  may 
be  useful.  The  first  is  that  we  must  strive  not  to  mistake  the 
nature  of  the  given  section  of  history  and  confuse  earlier  con- 
ditions with  those  of  a  later  date.  Imagine  anyone's  supposing 
that  Schopenhauer's  writings  were  as  eagerly  read  and  as  much 
the  object  of  public  approval  in  the  year  18 19,  when  his  great 
work  was  issued,  as  they  became  towards  the  year  i860,  after 
Frauenstadt  had  urged  them  upon  public  notice.  The  second 
is  that  we  must  not  let  earlier  conditions  be  made  doubtful  and 
less  clear  by  statements  made  about  them  at  a  later  date.  Our 
means  of  judging  of  a  period  removed  from  the  vision  of  an 
ancient  writer  are  often  better  than  his.  The  third  warning 
prevents  our  incautiously  making  the  conditions  and  circum- 
stances in  one  country  a  certain  measure  for  the  conditions  and 
circumstances  in  other  countries.  What  is  true  of  Egypt  at  a 
given  time  need  not  be  true  of  Italy  at  the  same  time.  Conceive 
of  a  writer  in  the  future  who  should  presuppose,  in  drawing 
historical  conclusions,  that  the  internal  conditions  in  Spain 
w^ere  the  same  as  those  in  Germany  in  the  year  1907,  that  the 
workmen  were  equally  intelligent  and  equally  successful  in 
securing  their  rights,  and  that  the  upper  classes  were  equally 
free  from  the  domination  of  the  Roman  Catholic  clergy.  The 
fourth  draws  a  similar  line  within  much  narrower  limits,  and 
forbids  us  to  suppose  that  the  circumstances  in  out  of  the 
way  places  and  districts  are  the  same  as  in  the  large  cities.  For 
all  our  post-offices  and  telegraph,  this  remains  largely  true  even 
to-day.  There  are  small  towns,  sometimes  curiously  enough 
quite  near  to  large  cities,  that  preserve  to-day  many  of  their  old 
characteristics.     Such  differences  were  in  ancient  times  in  the 


42  THE  CANON 

lands  that  we  have  in  view  often  extremely  great.  There  was 
often  a  gulf  of  race  and  speech,  and  therefore  of  character, 
education,  and  customs,  fixed  between  the  city  and  the  villages 
around  it. 

If  that  is  the  course  before  us  for  the  earlier  ages,  in  which 
by  far  the  greater  part  of  our  task  has  to  be  performed,  the  later 
periods  will  demand  of  us  an  account  of  the  varying  or  unvarying 
consistency  with  which  they  keep  to  or  depart  from  the  decisions 
of  their  predecessors.  It  will  perhaps  sometimes  be  necessary 
for  us  to  ask  whether  given  nations  or  societies  have  from  the 
first  held  to  that  which  they  at  the  present  suppose  that  they 
have  ever  believed  and  cherished. 


43 


I. 

THE  APOSTOLIC  AGE, 
33-90  (100). 

When  we  approach  the  age  of  the  apostles  we  must  lay  aside 
for  the  moment  modern  ways  of  thinking,  and  strive  to  put 
ourselves  beside  the  first  Christians  as  they  went  in  and  out  of 
the  temple  and  Jerusalem  and  Nazareth  and  Capernaum.  It  is 
hard  for  us  to  reduce  ourselves  to  the  simplicity  of  the  time,  of 
the  places,  of  the  country,  of  the  circumstances  in  which  this 
little  but  growing  society  found  itself.  For  us,  that  was  all  the 
enthusiastic  opening  of  the  movement  that  was  later  to  fill  and 
possess  the  world  of  that  day.  For  them,  for  those  incipient 
Christians,  there  was,  it  is  true,  a  certain  outlook  of  a  coming 
glory.  But  the  death  of  their  leader  and  the  doubt  and  hesita- 
tion, the  little  faith  of  many  of  the  brethren  dampened  and 
clogged  the  flight  of  their  thoughts.  The  glad  thought  of  the 
trumpet  sounding  at  midnight  the  return  of  their  Jesus,  a  return 
upon  the  clouds  of  light  in  the  majesty  of  a  king  by  the  grace 
of  God,  a  return  that  would  herald  them  to  the  rest  of  the  world 
as  the  favourites  and  confidential  friends  of  this  universal 
sovereign, — this  glad  thought  must  before  the  lapse  of  many 
years  have  given  place  to  a  quiet  resignation,  or  at  most  to  a 
modest  and  longing  wishfulness.  Like  the  Thessalonians,  they 
saw  one  and  another  of  their  number  recede  into  the  darkness 
of  the  tomb,  though  all  of  them  were  men  who  had  counted  upon 
the  open  vision  of  that  triumphant  entry.  They  had  thought 
that  they  had  a  draft  on  sight,  not  one  payable  in  two  thousand 
or  ten  thousand  years.  They  were  simple-minded  people.  What 
did  they  think  about  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament  when 
they  were  placed  before  their  eyes?  Let  us  consider  the 
case. 

We  regard  the  word  as  of  pre-eminent  importance.     We  have 


44  THE  CANON 

not  heard  Jesus  speak.  Nor  do  we  know  anyone  who  has 
heard  Him.  Neither  our  fathers  nor  our  grandfathers  wandered 
with  Him  over  the  hills  of  Galilee.  For  us  the  written  word  is  of 
great  weight ;  and  of  right,  for  it  is  beyond  price.  But  there  is 
something  still  more  important  than  the  written  word.  Did  we 
wish,  as  some  people  unfortunately  often  do,  to  limit  the  sayings 
and  the  deeds,  the  events  in  those  years  of  the  Church's  infancy, 
to  what  we  find  written  down  in  the  New  Testament,  as  if  it 
were  a  precise  chronicle  of  all  that  the  Christians  experienced, 
we  should  go  astray.  And  we  should  err  still  more  widely  if  we 
refused  to  accept  any  testimony  as  to  the  written  word  in  the 
New  Testament  which  we  cannot  read  in  so  many  sentences  in 
ecclesiastical  authors.  The  Christian  Church  is  more  than  a 
book.  Jesus  was  more  than  a  word.  Jesus,  the  Logos,  the 
Word,  was  the  Life,  and  the  Church  is  a  living  society,  a  living 
fellowship.  There  is  something  sublime  in  such  a  fellowship  that 
passes  through  the  ages  in  a  living  tradition.  Our  connection 
with  Jesus,  which  reaches  now  over  more  than  eighteen  hundred 
years,  does  not  rest  upon  the  fact  that  He  wrote  something  down, 
which  one  man  and  another,  one  after  another  has  read  and 
believed  until  this  very  day.  So  far  as  we  know.  He  left  no 
writings,  no  notes  behind  Him.  We  do  not  read  that  He  ever 
told  anyone  to  take  down  His  words  so  as  to  give  them  to  others 
in  white  and  black.  We  are  not  told  that  He  ever  wrote  or 
dictated  even  a  letter.  He  lived  and  He  spoke.  Christianity 
began  with  the  joining  of  heart  to  heart.  Eye  looked  into  eye. 
The  living  voice  struck  upon  the  living  ear.  And  it  is  precisely 
such  a  uniting  of  personalities,  such  an  action  of  man  on  man, 
that  ever  since  Jesus  spoke  has  effected  the  unceasing  renewal  of 
Christianity.  Christianity  has  not  grown  to  be  what  it  is,  has 
not  maintained  itself  and  enlarged  itself,  by  reason  of  books 
being  read,  no,  not  even  by  reason  of  the  Bible's  being  read 
from  generation  to  generation.  How  many  millions  of  the 
Christians  of  past  days  could  not  read !  How  many  to-day 
cannot  read  !  Christianity  is  first  of  all  a  life  and  has  been 
passed  along  as  life,  has  been  lived,  livingly  presented  from  age 
to  age.  The  Christian,  whether  a  clergyman  or  a  layman,  has 
sought  with  his  heart  after  the  hearts  of  his  fellow-men.  A 
mother  has  whispered  the  word  to  her  child,  a  friend  has  spoken 
it  in  the  ear  of  his  friend,  a  preacher  has  proclaimed  it  to  his 


THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE  45 

hearers,  and  the  child,  the  friend,  the  hearers  have  believed  and 
become  Christians.     Cbxktianity  is  an  uninterxiipted  life.  .- 

These  considerations  have  certain  practical  consequences  for 
the  inquiries  in  the  criticism  of  the  canon.  It  is  certain  that  the 
leaders  of  the  Church,  the  more  prominent  men  particularly  in 
the  earliest  ages,  wrote  very  few  books.  Our  researches  will 
probably  show  us  that  most  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament 
were  written  at  an  early  date.  But  it  is  not  in  the  least  to  be 
reasonably  presupposed  or  expected  that  the  Christians  in  the 
years  that  immediately  followed  spent  their  time  in  writing  books 
that  should  convey  to  us  what  we  wish  to  know  about  the 
criticism  of  the  canon.  It  was  a  period  of  tradition  by  word  of 
mouth.  It  was  not  tradition  by  book  and  eye,  but  tradition  by 
mouth  and  ear,  that  occupied  the  minds  of  those  Christians  in 
their  unresting,  untiring  efforts  to  spread  the  words  of  Jesus  and 
the  story  of  His  work.  We  sometimes  hear  complaints  about  the 
scantiness  of  the  literature  that  has  been  preserved  to  us,  that 
are  uttered  as  if  those  early  days  of  the  Church  had  been  days  of 
prolific  literary  activity,  as  if  an  exuberant  literature  had  existed 
which  has  been  lost.  Nothing  of  the  kind  was,  so  far  as  we  can 
see,  the  case.  On  the  contrary,  but  little  in  comparison  was 
written.  But  this  circumstance — and  that  is  the  point  of  these 
remarks — cannot  be  turned  into  a  good  reason  for  doubting  the 
existence  and  use  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  at  that 
time.  It  was  a  time  of  busy  proclamation  of  the  gospel,  and  a 
time  at  which  the  near  end — in  spite  of  all  disappointed  hopes — 
was  still  looked  for.  Literary  events,  literary  processes,  literary 
activity  were  far  from  their  thoughts.  The  members  of  the 
Christian  Churches,  of  the  little  circles  that  were  here  and  there 
linkmg  themselves  together  in  the  bond  of  fellowship,  were  to  a 
great  extent  poor  and  uneducated.  The  larger  part  of  the  first 
Christians  were  neither  in  a  position  to  buy  nor  able  to  read 
books.  They  were  in  the  habit  of  hearing,  not  of  reading,  news 
that  was  of  interest  to  them.  They  had  no  newspapers  to  allure 
them  from  their  unlettered  state. 

The  Christians  were,  however,  notalMll^educated^  Their 
leaders  will  doubtless  in  most  cases  have  been  able  to  read  and 
write.  It  might  be  supposed  then  that  these  leaders  were  eager 
furtherers  of  Christian  literary  effort.  We  have  no  indications 
that  that  was  the  case,  and  a  little  reflection,  combined  with  what 


46  THE  CANON 

has  been  already  said  about  the  making  known  of  the  good 
tidings,  will  I  think,  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  books  and 
'.iterature  were  among  the  things  farthest  from  their  thoughts. 
For  we  must  not  forget  that  these  leaders  were  not  trained 
officials,  not  even  trained  as  officials  in  general,  let  alone  literature. 
They  had  not  been  recruited  from  the  number  of  the  head  men 
of  the  Jews.  They  were  taken  from  the  rank  and  file.  And  in 
especial  they  were  not  scribes  and  lawyers,  not  used  to  dealing 
day  by  day  with  books,  with  the  Jewish  book  of  books,  the  Law. 
If  they  could  read  a  passage  in  the  synagogue  and  say  a  few 
words  about  it,  that  would  be  the  utmost  that  could  be  required 
or  asked  of  them. 

Just  at  this  point,  having  reminded  ourselves  of  the  fact  that 
neither  the  common  run  of  Christians  nor  those  who  had  by  age 
or  social  standing  or  some  personal  quality  been  placed  in  a 
position  of  a  certain  trifling  authority  had  any  special  literary 
inclinations,  it  will  be  pertinent  to  reflect  for  an  instant  upon  the 
uncritical  disposition  of  the  age.  This  was  not  a  peculiarly 
Christian  failing!  MefT^nch  as  those  we  have  just  glanced  at 
could  not  be  expected  to  examine  cautiously  and  precisely  every 
grain  of  evidence  for  books  presented  for  Christian  use.  It 
would  be  very  strange  if  they  thought  of  such  a  thing,  But  the 
whole  world  of  that  day  was  credulous  to  a  high  degree.  Clement 
of  Rome,  and  even  Tacitus  in  a  way,  appear  to  have  half-believed 
the  myth  of  the_pbcenix,  and  the  majority  of^the^peo^le  were 
ready  to  believe  the  most  improbable  stories.  I  have  spoken  of 
that  age  as  being  credulous.  I  might  have  said  that  all  men, 
with  very  few  exceptions,  are  credulous.  Men  are  credulous  to- 
day. People  of  birth  and  education  go  to  inane  but  cunning 
spiritists  and  fortune-tellers.  And  the  poor  of  all  countries 
devour  eagerly  the  wildest  fancies  of  a  lying  messenger.  To 
return :  the  age  with  which  we  have  to  deal  and  the  persons  with 
whom  we  have  especially  to  do  was  not  and  were  not  critically 
inclined.  We  must  keep  this  in  mind  when  we  reflect  upon 
their  acceptance  and  approval  of  writings  that  may  happen  to 
have  been  offered  for  their  consideration. 

If  anyone  had  asked  a  Palestinian  Jewish  Christian  in  the 
year,  let  us  say,  35  in  what  language  a  book  meant  for  the  use  of 
Christians  should  be  written,  I  have  little  doubt  that  he  would 
have  replied ;  "  In  Aramaic,"  although  he  might  have  called  it 


THE  APOSTOLIC  AGE  47 

Hebrew  or  Syriac  in  a  slovenly  way  of  speaking.  The  sacred 
books  were  indeed  in  good  Hebrew,  we  might  call  it  classical ; 
and  if  the  man  questioned  should  have  entertained  the  thought 
that  the  books  referred  to  should  be  equivalent  to  the  books  of 
the  Old  Testament,  he  would,  of  course,  have  replied  that  they 
must  be  in  classical  Hebrew.  Even  to-day  in  Arabic-speaking 
countries  the  Arabic  Christians  wish  the  Scriptures  read  to  them 
and  the  sermons  preached  to  them  to  be  in  classical  Arabic, 
even  though  the  sermons,  in  fact,  fall  far  short  of  any  due  classical 
standards.  The  Western  scholars  who  sometimes  are  surprised 
by  this  fact  and  demur  at  it,  should  reflect  that  a  Billingsgate 
fishwoman,  a  London  omnibus-driver,  a  Berlin  cab-driver,  and  a 
New  York  street  arab  would  all  alike  be  surprised,  and  I  scarcely 
think  pleased,  to  hear  the  Scriptures  read  and  sermons  preached 
in  the  jargon  that  they  daily  use.  The  Aramaic  which  Jesus 
spoke  was  not  from  the  east,  not  a  product  in  Palestine  of  the 
return  from  the  exile  in  Babylon,  but  from  the  north,  an  im- 
portation made  probably  during  the  first  half  of  the  second 
century  before  Christ.  It  is  likely  that  the  same  answer  would 
have  been  given  by  some  Christians  even  at  a  later  date. 
Nevertheless  we  have  every  reason  to  believe  that  a  large 
number  of  the  Jewish  inhabitants  of  Palestine  understood  and 
spoke  Greek  long  before  the  time  of  Christ.  The  Aramaic 
population  was  encircled  by  and,  if  the  expression  be  not  contra- 
dictory, at  least  sparsely  permeated  by  Greek-speaking  inhabitants. 
The  seacoast  was  chiefly  Greek.  Joppa,  now  Jaffa,  where  the 
Jews  of  the  south  touched  the  coast,  was  the  scene  of  the  Greek 
myth  of  Perseus  and  Andromeda.  Caesarea  was  Greek.  Ptolemais 
or  Akka  was,  like  several  cities  on  the  other,  the  eastern  side  of 
Palestine,  a  Hellenistic  city,  and  they  all  had  been  in  existence 
for  centuries.  As  for  literature,  Ascalon  produced  four  Stoic 
philosophers.  The  Epicurean  Philodemus  was  from  Gadara,  and 
so  was  the  Cynic  Menippos.  Civil  officials  and  military  officers 
were  stationed  here  and  there.  Heathen  plays  were  well  known, 
there  being  a  theatre  and  amphitheatre  at  Jerusalem,  a  theatre, 
an  amphitheatre,  and  a  hippodrome  at  Jericho,  a  stadium  at 
Tiberias,  and  a  hippodrome  at  Taricheae,  the  Pickelries.  Add 
to  that  the  movements  of  Greek-speaking  traders  and  workmen. 
Consider,  further,  the  proselytes,  the  synagogues  of  the  Libertines, 
the  Cyreneans,  the  Alexandrians,  and  the  Cilicians  named  in 


48  THE  CANON 

Acts.  From  all  this  hasty  glimpse  we  see  that  Greek  must  have 
been  in  Palestine  a  very  well-known  language.  The  effect  of  the 
Greek  elements,  just  alluded  to,  upon  the  Aramaic-speaking 
population  can  only  be  duly  appreciated  by  taking  into  view  the 
small  extent  of  the  country  and  the  resultant  compulsion  the 
Arameans  were  under  to  meet  and  deal  with  Greeks.  From 
Jericho  to  Joppa  itself  was  not  two  days  for  a  fast  traveller.  It 
is  interesting  to  observe  that  the  military  governor,  the  colonel, 
in  the  twenty-first  and  twenty-second  chapters  of  Acts,  is  surprised 
to  find  that  Paul,  whom  he  had  taken  for  a  wild  Egyptian,  can 
speak  Greek,  while  in  a  reverse  direction  it  is  clear  that  the  mob 
is  surprised  to  hear  him  speak  Aramaic.  The  interesting  thing 
is  that  the  mob  had  evidently  expected  to  understand  him,  even 
if  he  had  spoken  Greek.  So  soon  as  Christianity  began  to 
address  itself  to  the  Greek-speaking  Jews  outside  of  Palestine, 
the  first  thought  of  any  author  of  a  letter  or  of  a  book  designed 
for  general  circulation  will  have  been  to  write  it  in  Greek.  For 
that  language  would  reach  almost  all  Jews,  even  in  Palestine, 
saving  a  certain  part  of  the  poorer  classes. 

The  Jews  who  heard  Jesus  and  believed  on  Him,  will  at  the 
first  moment  not  have  dreamed  of  the  production  of  a  literature,  of 
a  series  of  books  for  their  own  particular  use  and  benefit.  Then 
and  long  after  that,  probably  so  long  as  the  temple  continued  to 
stand,  they  remained  good  Jews  and  did  their  duty,  observed  the 
rites  due  from  them  as  Jews.  If  anyone  had  asked  after  their 
sacred  books  they  would  have  pointed  to  the  Old  Testament 
without  a  thought  that  anything  more  could  be  desired.  They 
had  heard  Jesus.  They  continued  to  be  Jews  in  union  with 
Jesus.  They  were  fully  satisfied  with  the  Scriptures  which  they 
possessed.  No  one  had  asked  Jesus  to  write  a  continuation  of 
the  Old  Testament.  What  could  be  desired?  Should  a  new 
law  be  drawn  up  ?  Jesus  had  declared  that  the  old  law  should 
outlast  the  heavens.  Should  a  new  prophetical  book  be  added  ? 
Jesus  had  announced  the  close  of  the  prophecy :  "  until  John." 
As  time  passed  by  there  came,  however,  two  literary  movements, 
one  in  gathering  at  least  fragments  of  the  words  of  Jesus,  the 
other  in  the  supplying  of  certain  needs  of  the  Christians  by 
means  of  letters  from  the  apostles  or  other  Christian  leaders; 
but  neither  of  these  movements  had  at  the  first  moment  a 
trace  of  an  intention  to  continue,  to  complete,  or  to  supplement 


THE  APOSTOLIC  AGE  49 

the  sacred  books  of  the  Jews  which  were  also  the  sacred  books 
of  the  Christians.  The  earliest  Christian  authora..jdid.nQL..for_an 
instant  suppose  that  they  were  writin^sacied-books. 

If  we  go  bacI^m  thoupTtoTEese  years  in  wEicITthe  Christians 
are  gradually  growing  more  and  more  numerous,  in  which  the 
many  who  had  been  in  Jerusalem  at  that  great  Whitsunday  were 
being  multiplied  not  only  in  Palestine  but  also  far  and  wide 
throughout  the  Roman  Empire,  we  must  be  cautious  in  assuming 
for  them  too  large  a  number  of  adherents  at  the  first  moment. 
Eastern  people  are  poor  counters,  and  easily  exceed  the  facts  with 
their  tens  and  hundreds  and  thousands.  The  Churches  were 
small  gatherings,  chiefly  of  not  very  well  educated  men  and 
women.  These  Churches  were  not  on  the  lookout  for  books. 
They  had  among  them  men  who  had  seen  and  heard  Jesus,  or  at 
least  His  apostles,  the  Twelve.  Some  of  the  Churches  really  had 
members  of  the  inner  circle,  of  those  Twelve,  among  them  It 
could  not  be  otherwise,  for  the  Twelve  neither  died  nor  were  killed 
all  at  once  at  the  time  of  the  death  of  Stephen.  Even  at  the 
time  at  which  Paul  wrote  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians — and 
that  was  probably  in  the  year  53 — it  is  clear  that  no  Gospels  were 
known  to  him.  He  says  in  that  letter  (i  Cor.  15^),  speaking  of 
his  preaching,  that  he  had  passed  on  to  the  Corinthians,  when  he 
first  went  among  them,  that  which  he  had  received,  namely,  that 
Jesus  died  for  our  sins  according  to  the  Scriptures,  and  so  on.  He 
does  not  say  that  he  had  read  this,  but  that  he  had  received  it  and 
that  is  here  that  he  had  heard  it.  Ananias  and  others  had  told 
him  about  it.  As  little  does  he  tell  them  to  take  up  the  Gospels 
in  their  hands  and  see  for  themselves  whether  his  doctrine  agrees 
with  the  books.  It  seems  to  me  that  this  altogether  does  away 
with  the  opinion  formed  by  some,  that  Paul  spent  his  time  in 
Damascus  and  Arabia  immediately  after  his  conversion  in  reading 
a  Gospel  written  by  Matthew.  We  have,  then,  no  reason  to 
suppose  that  Paul  or  the  Corinthians,  and  therefore  as  little  to 
suppose  that  Peter  or  the  Christians  at  Jerusalem  and  Antioch, 
had  in  the  year  53  Gospels  before  them.  It  would,  however,  be 
quite  possible  that  somewhere  about  that  time  one  and  another 
Christian  had  begun  to  think  of  using  his  pen  in  a  limited  way. 

Before  inquiring  what  these  possible  writers  probably  would 
have  written,  I  must  touch  upon  one  other  matter,  which  I  prefer 
to  mention  here,  instead  of  giving  it  in  connection  with  the  Jewish 
4 


50  THE  CANON 

canon,  because  it  will  throw  light  upon  the  circumstances  of  the 
earlier  Christian  societies.  We  saw  above  that  the  Jews  had 
sacred  writings  in  three  parts — Law,  Prophets,  Writings.  It  is,  I 
think,  important  to  emphasise  the  fact  that  we  are  by  no  means 
authorised  to  suppose  that  every  Jewish  synagogue  had  all  the 
books  of  all  three  of  these  parts,  of  course  in  the  third  part  all 
the  books  that  at  any  given  time  belonged  to  this  part.  It  is  very 
easy  to-day  to  buy  an  Old  Testament  and  a  New  Testament  and 
both  may  be  in  one  volume.  At  that  day  the  whole  of  the  Old 
Testament  filled  several  rolls  of  different  sizes,  and  I  feel  sure 
that  many  a  village  synagogue  will  have  been  glad  of  the  possession 
of  the  Law  and  the  Prophets,  and  have  not  been  able  to  buy  all 
the  other  rolls.  The  Psalms  they  will  probably  have  had.  Even 
if  anyone  should  hesitate  to  agree  with  me  on  this  point  in  respect 
to  the  smaller  Jewish  synagogues,  I  think  no  one  will  fail  to  con- 
cede, that  when  we  turn  to  the  few  Christians  who  at  the  first 
here  and  there  separated  themselves  as  Christians,  for  the  purpose 
of  having  Christian  worship,  from  the  synagogues  in  their  town 
or  village,  we  must  not  think  of  them  as  able  to  have  the  Law, 
the  Prophets,  and  the  Writings.  I  say  separated,  it  would  perhaps 
be  better  for  at  least  many  places  to  say :  were  forced  to  leave 
the  synagogues.  In  time  the  little  circle  will  have  succeeded  in 
getting  at  least  certain  parts  of  the  Old  Testament  for  liturgical 
purposes,  but  it  may  often  have  been  a  long  while  before  that 
was  possible.  Where  they  were  still  allowed  to  go  to  the 
synagogue  they  will  still  have  continued  to  go  to  it  on  Saturday, 
on  the  Sabbath,  and  then  have  had  their  own  special  Christian 
services  on  the  Lord's  Day,  on  Sunday.  It  was  this  that  led,  I 
suppose,  in  the  early  Church,  and  I  doubt  not  at  an  exceedingly 
early  date,  to  Christian  services  on  Saturday  or  the  Sabbath, — we 
must  quit  the  pernicious  habit  of  calling  the  Lord's  Day  by  the 
Jewish  name  for  Saturday, — services  that  were  only  secondary  to 
the  Sunday  services.  It  was  this  that  led  to  the  determination 
not  only  of  Simday  but  also  of  Sabbath  Gospel  lessons,  and  the 
two  series  are  still  to  be  found  in  the  lesson  books  of  the  older 
Churches.  To  return  to  our  point,  the  early  Christian  societies 
will  often  not  have  had  all  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  at 
their  command,  and  will  therefore  have  had  still  less  inclination 
to  look  beyond  that  for  new  books.  What  they  heard  about 
Jesus  they  heard  from  the  living  voice  of  the  wandering  preachers 


THE  APOSTOLIC  AGE  5 1 

who  were  called  apostles,  and  that  was  fresh,  varied,  interesting, 
something  quite  different  from  the  rolls  of  the  synagogue.  It  is 
a  strange  thought  for  us  :  Christians  who  had  no  written  Gospels. 
To  think  that  Paul  the  great  apostle  probably  never  saw  a  written 
Gospel !  He  had  heard  the  gospel,  not  read  it ;  heard  it  from 
Christians  in  Damascus,  seen  it  in  heavenly  visions,  not  read  it. 
What  a  preacher  he  must  have  been  for  all  his  weakness !  But 
he  had  not  a  sign  of  a  commentary  out  of  which  to  draw  his 
sermons,  much  less  ready-made  skeletons  of  sermons,  and  not 
even  a  written  text. 

The  words  of  Jesus  and  the  story  of  Jesus'  work  were  then 
the  great  thing.  That  was  what  men  cared  to  hear.  And  when 
a  Christian  sharpened  his  reed  pen  and  dipped  it  in  the  ink  and 
began  to  write  on  a  piece  of  papyrus,  he  probably  first  wrote  down 
some  of  the  words  of  Jesus.  What  would  the  curiosity-mongers 
give  for  that  pen  and  for  that  first  piece  of  papyrus  with  the  first 
words  of  Jesus  that  were  written  down  for  future  reading  ?  One 
Christian  may  have  written  down  a  parable  which  had  especially 
pleased  him.  Another  will  have  told  with  his  pen  of  a  miracle  of 
Jesus.  Another  may  have  let  his  memory  and  his  pen  dwell 
upon  a  journey  made  with  Jesus,  from  Nazareth  to  Tiberias, 
from  Jerusalem  to  Jericho.  Later  other  parables,  miracles,  and 
journeys  will  have  been  added.  More  than  one  such  frail  and 
fleeting  little  papyrus  roll  will  have  been  written  upon,  of  many 
of  which  we  have  never  heard  a  word  and  of  which  we  shall  never 
see  a  line.  Some  wrote  in  Aramaic,  probably  the  most  of  them 
at  the  first,  for  the  most  of  the  hearers  of  Jesus  will  have  been 
Arameans.  Is  it  not  strange  that  the  Twelve  did  not  write  down 
the  words  of  Jesus  ?  But  perhaps  they  did  without  our  hearing 
of  it.  It  is  likely  that  one  of  them  in  particular  wrote  quite  a 
book.  That  was  Matthew.  We  shall  hear  more  about  it  later. 
He  doubtless  wrote  a  book  that  contained  a  great  many  of  Jesus' 
words,  and  told  in  between  in  scattered  sentences  what  Jesus  did 
as  He  went  about  Galilee  preaching  the  gospel  of  the  kingdom. 

It  was  probably  Paul  who  first  wrote  one  of  the  longer  books 
of  the  New  Testament.  But  he  did  not  begin  with  the  very 
largest.  We  do  not  know  when  he  began  to  write,  and  we  do  not 
know  whether  we  have  his  first  writings  or  not.  One  thing  we 
are  sure  of — we  have  not  all  that  he  wroter^  He  began  by  trying 
to  comfort  and  reassure  the  Christians  in  the  little  Church  at 


52  THE  CANON 

Thessalonica,  perhaps  in  the  year  48.  And  then  he  wrote  to  the 
Corinthians  in  the  year  it  may  be  53,  and  then  to  the  Romans  it 
may  be  in  the  year  54,  and  then  to  the  Galatians,  and  so  on.  It 
is  not  entirely  beyond  the  pale  of  possibility  that  Peter  and  that 
James  the  brother  of  Jesus  wrote  such  a  letter  before  Paul  wrote 
to  the  Thessalonians.  So  far  as  we  can  judge  from  the  very  little 
that  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  tell  us  about  Paul,  he 
stopped  preaching  and  stopped  writing  letters  and  went  to  heaven 
about  the  year  64,  and  that  book  of  Matthew  that  was  referred 
to  above  may  easily  have  been  written  somewhere  about  that 
time. 

Matthew's  Aramaic  book,  or  the  Aramaic  book  about  Jesus  in 
Galilee,  whether  Matthew  wrote  it  or  not,  must  before  more  than 
a  year  or  two  had  passed,  perhaps  before  more  than  a  month  or 
two  had  passed,  have  been  translated  into  Greek.  Now  that  the 
book  was  before  the  Christians'  eyes,  they  will  have  wondered 
that  no  one  had  thought  to  write  it  at  an  earlier  day.  That  book 
did  not.  tell  about  the  passion.  The  passion  did  not  belong  to 
Galilee.  Before  long  it  became  clear  that  the  Christians  needed 
a  more  complete  account  of  the  words  and  deeds  of  Jesus.  This 
need  John  Mark  the  Jerusalemite,  the  cousin  of  Barnabas,  the 
friend  of  Paul  and  of  Peter,  seems  to  have  felt  and  tried  to  supply 
in  our  second  Gospel,  written  perhaps  about  the  year  69.  Some- 
one else,  we  have  not  the  most  remote  idea  who  it  may  have  been, 
took  up  the  story  a  few  years  later  and  wrote  our  first  Gospel. 
Still  later  Luke  wrote  the  third  Gospel  and  the  book  of  Acts.  It 
was  not  till  nearly  the  end  of  the  century  that  the  Fourth  Gospel 
appeared. 

We  are  at  the  close  of  the  apostolic  age.  We  see  the 
numerous  little  Churches,  that  is  to  say,  companies  of  Christians, 
scattered  over  the  Roman  Empire,  meeting  from  week  to  week 
in  private  houses  and  exhorting  one  another  to  a  firm  faith,  a 
good  life,  and  a  living  hope.  A  number  of  books  have  been 
written  that  these  Christians  find  particularly  valuable.  Part  of 
them  look  a  little  like  histories,  part  of  them  are  simply  letters,  one 
of  them  is  a  book  of  dreams.  But  for  all  these  writings  the  thing 
which  holds  the  attention  of  the  Christian  Churches  is  still  the 
living  word,  the  weekly  sermon,  if  the  given  Church  be  so  for- 
tunate as  to  have  a  preacher  every  week. 

So  far  as  we  can  see,  there  is  as  yet  no  collection  of  Christian 


THE  APOSTOLIC  AGE  53 

books.  That  must  soon  come.  We  have  nearly  closed  the  first 
century.  The  apostolic  age  laps  over  on  to  the  post-apostolic 
age.  It  closes  about  the  year  100,  but  the  post-apostolic  age 
begins  about  the  year  90.  The  reason  for  this  double  boundary 
lies  in  the  wish  to  include  in  the  former  age  the  Fourth  Gospel  and 
in  the  latter  age  the  letter  of  the  Church  at  Rome  to  the  Church 
at  Corinth,  the  letter  called  Clement's  of  Rome. 

Paul  wrote  to  the  Thessalonians  in  his  second  letter,  2  Thess. 
2'^^,  that  they  should  stand  firm,  and  that  they  should  hold  fast 
to  the  traditions  that  they  had  been  taught  either  by  word  of 
mouth  or  by  a  letter  from  him.  That  was  the  signature  of  the 
early  age  of  the  Church.  It  will  still  follow  us  into  the  second 
period.  But  a  new  principle  is  preparing,  or  the  foundation  is 
being  laid  for  a  new  principle,  that  will  recognise  a  crystallisation 
of  the  traditions.  The  enthusiasm  of  the  simple  Christian 
brethren  of  the  first  years  is  to  fade  into  a  cool  and  steady  service 
under  a  new  law  and  a  new  hierarchy.  The  living  voice  of  the 
preacher,  of  the  apostle  hastening  from  place  to  place,  is  to  give 
way  to  the  words  read  from  a  written  page  and  to  uncertain 
comments  thereupon. 

Between  the  years  in  which  the  first  books  of  the  New 
Testament  were  written  and  the  close  of  the  apostolic  period 
about  a  half  a  century  had  elapsed,  which  would  be  for  us  as  far 
as  from  i860  to  to-day.  During  that  time  the  books  of  the  New 
Testament  were  probably  most  of  them  written.  Before  we  leave 
this  age,  w^e  should  ask  whether  we  can  find  any  signs  of  what 
might  be  called  self-consciousness  in  these  writings  of  the  New 
Testament.  That  is  to  say,  we  know  of,  or  suspect  the  existence 
of  but  one  book,  outside  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  that 
was  probably  or  possibly  written  during  this  period.  And  there- 
fore when  we  ask  if  there  are  any  signs  at  this  time  of  the  exist- 
ence of  these  books,  it  amounts  to  much  the  same  as  asking 
whether  these  books  give  any  tokens  of  noticing  their  own  exist- 
ence, any  tokens  of  a  knowledge  of  any  Christian  literature.  The 
passage  already  alluded  to,  in  w^hich  Paul  refers  to  the  traditions 
which  the  Thessalonians  received  by  word  or  from  his  letter,  is 
scarcely  more  than  a  shadow  of  self-consciousness  of  these 
writings,  since  he  there  is  speaking  so  thoroughly  practically,  and 
not  in  the  least  claiming  book  value  and  permanent  value  for  his 
letter.     But  the  phrase,  the  sentence,  is  nevertheless  well  worth 


54  THE  CANON 

remark,  for  in  fact  there  lies  at  the  back  of  this  command  to  them 
the  thought  that  what  he  has  written  to  them  is  normative  or  that 
his  letter  is  normative.  The  opening  of  the  third  chapter  of  the 
Second  Epistle  of  Peter  with  its  reference  to  the  First  Epistle  and 
to  the  command  of  the  apostles,  and  then  the  words  about  Paul 
and  his  Epistles,  I  pass  over  here  because  I  do  not  think  that  this 
Epistle  belongs  to  this  age.  Luke  at  the  beginning  of  his  Gospel 
mentions  many  other  attempts  at  Gospels.  That  may  refer  in  part 
to  various  private  attempts  such  as  we  have  already  spoken  of. 
It  undoubtedly  refers,  if  I  mistake  not,  to  the  book  of  Matthew, 
the  Aramaic  one  that  was  translated  into  Greek,  and  also  to  the 
Gospel  of  Mark,  and  it  is  possible  although  not  very  likely  that  it 
has  in  view,  only  by  hearsay,  our  Gospel  according  to  Matthew 
and  the  Gospel  to  the  Hebrews.  In  no  case  is  the  word  "  many  " 
here  to  be  taken  in  the  sense  of  a  very  large  number,  so  that  we 
should  think  of  twenty  or  fifty  Gospels.  Many  means  more  or 
less  according  to  the  thing  spoken  of,  and  here  a  half  a  dozen 
would  be  an  abundant  number.  The  one  book  mentioned  a 
moment  ago  as  possibly  belonging  to  this  period  but  not  found 
in  the  New  Testament  is  the  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews  or  to  the 
Hebrews.  We  know,  however,  very  little  about  it.  It  may  very 
well  be  that  Aramaic  book  by  Matthew,  in  which  case  it  is  in  the 
main  or  perhaps  entirely  to  be  found  in  our  synoptic  Gospels.  It 
may  be  something  quite  different.  It  will  probably  come  to  light 
some  day  in  Egypt  or  in  Armenia  or  in  Syria,  and  then  we  shall 
know  more  about  it 


55 


II. 

THE  POST-APOSTOLIC  AGE. 

90-160. 

In  passing  over  to  the  age  after  that  of  the  apostles,  we  need 
first  of  all  to  form  for  ourselves  some  conception  of  the  way  in 
which  the  Christians  looked  at  the  books  which  they  found  in 
their  hands.  We  are  interested  to  know,  or  at  least  to  try  to 
fancy,  what  they  thought  of  them  and  why  they  kept  them.  It 
has  been  to  such  an  extent  the  habit  in  the  Christian  Church  to 
throw  a  cloud  of  glory  about  these  books,  that  it  is  difficult  to 
bring  our  minds  down  to  what  it  is  likely  were  the  hard  facts  of 
the  case.  The  guidance  and  care  of  the  Holy  Spirit  has  been 
emphasised  so  strongly  that  we  must  needs  suppose  that  each 
book  was  from  its  day  of  writing  definitely  marked  as  a  future 
member  of  the  illustrious  company,  and  was  most  scrupulously, 
we  might  say  masoretically,  guarded  and  transmitted  to  our  day. 
We  know,  however,  now  that  this  has  not  been  the  course  of 
things.  If  we  turn  back  to  the  early  days,  we  may  calmly  say 
that  it  is  in  every  way  probable  that  one  or  another  letter  of  the 
apostles,  that  would  humanly  speaking  have,  or  seem  to  have, 
afforded  us  as  much  instruction,  comfort,  and  help  as  certain 
Epistles  in  the  New  Testament,  has  simply  been  lost.  The  early 
Christians  had  no  thought  of  history,  no  thought  of  an  earthly 
future.  They  were  soon  to  cut  loose  from  all  their  surroundings. 
Why  should  they  then  save  up  books,  or  rather  save  up  letters. 
They  had  read  and  heard  the  given  letter.  That  was  all.  They 
knew  what  was  in  it.  No  more  was  needed.  Why  keep  the 
letter  ?  Precisely  the  opposite  may  now  and  then  have  happened, 
namely  that  a  little  Church  read  a  letter  to  pieces ;  unrolled  the 
papyrus  and  rolled  it  up  again  until  it  fell  apart,  and  that  with- 
out setting  about  copying  it  so  as  to  keep  it  in  a  new  form.  The 
letters  that  the  apostles  wrote  to  them  were  not  "  Bible."     They 


56  THE  CANON 

were  the  letters  of  their  favourite  preachers.  Some  members  of 
the  Church  were  enthusiastic  about  the  apostle,  others  were  not, 
others  liked  another  apostle  or  another  preacher  very  much 
better.  The  very  man  in  the  little  community  who  because  of 
his  better  education  came  to  have  charge  of  a  letter  received 
might  be  a  friend  of  some  other  preacher,  and  therefore  neglect 
the  letter  of  an  apostle.  In  the  case  of  the  Epistles  which  we 
still  possess,  some  were  surely  kept  with  the  greatest  care,  read 
duly  by  the  members  of  the  Church,  read  in  occasional  meetings, 
lent  to  neighbouring  Churches,  copied  off  for  distant  Churches, 
and  copied  off  for  themselves  as  soon  as  they  began  to  grow 
old  and  were  threatened  with  decay.  No  one  will  have 
given  a  thought  to  the  original  the  moment  that  a  new  copy  was 
done. 

The  Gospels  were  different.  They  were  not  sent  to  Churches 
or  to  anybody  else.  No  one  got  one  unless  he  ordered  it.  And 
they  did  not  convey  to  the  reader  merely  the  words  of  an 
apostle,  but  the  words  and  deeds  of  Jesus.  During  the  apostolic 
age  there  will  not  have  been  so  very  many  copies  of  the 
Gospels  made.  For  the  Churches  were  poor,  and  books  from 
which  to  copy  may  not  have  been  anywhere  near.  Most  of 
all,  they  then  had  the  wandering  preachers  who  told  them 
about  Jesus,  and  therefore  the  written  Gospels  were  the  less 
necessary. 

Certainly,  however,  these  writings  came  to  be  read  in  the 
public  meetings.  The  word  public  has  for  this  primitive  time,  it 
is  true,  a  strange  sense,  since  the  groups  were  often  so  very  small, 
and  were  always  in  private  houses;  but  it  was  nevertheless, 
within  the  limits  of  the  case  and  as  the  forerunner  of  the  later 
services  in  Church  edifices,  a  public  reading,  not  the  reading  of 
one  man  for  himself  or  for  his  room  mate  or  for  his  family,  but 
the  reading  of  a  book  before  a  duly  collected  group  of  men  and 
women.  We  must  consider  carefully  this  early  reading  of  books 
in  the  Christian  assemblies.  If  I  am  not  mistaken,  we  shall  in  it 
see  the  process  of  authorisation  of  books  from  the  first  to  the 
last  step. 

Going  back  to  the  beginning,  to  the  first  time  that  a  letter 
from  an  apostle,  let  us  say  Paul,  was  received  by  a  Church,  let  us 
say  Thessalonica,  we  can  imagine  the  stir  it  will  have  made.  The 
little  group  will  have  been  complete ;  no  one  will  have  stayed  at 


THE  POST-APOSTOLIC  AGE— SCRIPTURE  IN  CHURCH    57 

home  that  evening.  The  letter  was  eagerly  read  and  eagerly 
heard,  and  then  they  probably  talked  it  over  with  each  other. 
They  perhaps  read  it  again  the  next  night  and  the  next.  The 
Church  at  Bercea  and  other  Churches,  possibly  as  far  as  Philippi, 
may  have  borrowed  it  or  asked  for  copies  of  it,  although  we  do 
not  suppose  that  at  this  early  moment  the  borrowing  and  copying 
were  so  common  as  they  soon  came  to  be.  Gradually  the  letter 
will  have  been  in  a  measure  laid  aside.  The  members  of  the 
company  knew  it  almost  by  heart.  The  second  letter  may  have 
reached  them.  That  this  letter  was  in  any  way  secret,  will  not 
have  entered  their  minds.  The  same  thing  happened  in  the 
other  Churches  that  received  letters  from  apostles.  As  time 
went  on,  as  one  apostle  and  then  another  passed  away,  some 
Churches  here  and  there  with  a  member  or  two  who  had  a  special 
liking  for  books  or  for  documents,  probably  got  all  the  letters 
they  could  reach  copied  for  them  and  then  kept  them  together, 
reading  them  as  occasion  might  offer,  either  from  beginning  to 
end,  or  the  particular  part  of  the  letter  which  appealed  or  applied 
to  the  moment. 

During  all  this  time,  and  doubtless  well  on  into  the  second 
century  at  least  in  many  districts,  the  word  was  still  preached  in 
the  passing  flight  of  the  wandering  preachers,  the  apostles.  Little 
by  little  it  will  have  become  known  that  the  Gospels  had  been 
written.  These  Gospels  will  at  first  have  been  circulated  in  the 
immediate  neighbourhood  of  the  place  in  which  each  was  written, 
and  then  have  soon  struck  the  great  lines,  if  they  were  not 
already  on  one  of  them,  and  have  reached  Rome  and  Jerusalem 
and  Alexandria.  Wherever  a  Gospel  was  received.  Christians  will 
have  compared  its  tenor  with  that  which  they  had  heard  by 
word  of  mouth.  But  for  a  while  the  living  voice  of  the  evangelis- 
ing preacher  will  have  been  preferred  to  the  dead  letter  in  the 
book.  Many  Churches  will  for  a  long  while  have  had  no  Gospel 
or  only  one  Gospel,  and  only  after  much  waiting  have  gotten 
more.  Church  after  Church,  group  after  group  of  Christians  had 
then  a  Gospel  and  an  Epistle  or  two,  a  few  Epistles.  The  tendency 
of  the  intercourse  between  the  Churches  was  towards  an  increase 
in  the  collection  of  books ;  now  one  now  another  new  one  was 
added  by  friends  to  the  old  and  treasured  store  of  rolls.  It  is 
totally  impossible  to  give  any  accurate  idea  of  the  rapidity  of  the 
accretion,  totally  impossible  to  say  when  it  was  that  a  number  of 


58  THE  CANON 

Churches  secured  all  four  Gospels  and  the  greater  part  of  the 
Epistles.  Each  one  must  make  his  own  estimate.  I  am  inclined 
to  think  that  about  the  close  of  the  first  century  or  in  the  first 
twenty  years  of  the  second  century — that  is  indefinite  enough — 
the  four  Gospels  were  brought  together  in  some  places.  The  last 
Gospel  to  be  written,  the  Fourth  Gospel,  must  have  been  at  once 
accepted,  and  that  if  I  am  not  mistaken  as  the  work  of  John  from 
the  Twelve,  and  have  had  great  success. 

Let  us  turn  to  the  worship,  the  public  worship  of  the 
Christians.  It  need  only  be  mentioned  in  passing  that  there  was 
nothing  like  a  regular  order  of  services  that  prevailed  all  over,  in 
Palestine  as  well  as  in  Spain.  There  will  have  been  every 
description  of  order  of  exercises,  from  the  silence  of  the  Quakers 
of  to-day  to  the  more  elaborate  liturgy  or  order  which  we  shall 
now  mention.  I  am  persuaded  that  the  ordinary  services 
consisted  of  four  parts,  comprising  (a)  that  which  men  offered, 
said,  laid  before  God;  (d)  that  which  God  said  to  men; 
(c)  that  which  a  man  said  to  men ;  and  (d)  a  meal,  the  love- 
feast,  closing  with  the  breaking  of  bread,  the  Lord's  Supper. 
The  division  (a),  man  to  God,  will  have  consisted  of  prayer,  free 
if  possible,  often  probably  with  much  out  of  the  Psalms,  and, 
after  the  prayer,  a  hymn  or  a  psalm.  The  division  (d),  God  to 
men,  will  have  consisted  originally  of  the  Scripture  reading,  and 
that,  of  course,  from  and  only  from  the  Old  Testament.  The 
division  (c),  man  to  men,  contained  the  sermon  or  an  address  of 
some  kind,  an  exhortation.  This  must  have  been  in  general  the 
point  at  which  the  gospel  was  preached,  at  which  the  life,  deeds, 
and  words  of  Jesus  were  brought  before  the  hearers.  Then 
followed  part  four.  Remember,  I  am  not  pretending  to  say  that 
the  order  of  services  from  instant  to  instant  must  have  been 
(a)  {b)  (c)  {d).  All  I  am  contending  for  is,  that  the  services  con- 
sisted of  these  four  parts,  of  these  four  thoughts,  if  anyone  prefers 
the  expression,  and  that  all  that  occurred  during  the  course  of  the 
service,  in  whatever  order,  belonged  under  one  head  or  another 
out  of  the  four,  and  that  anything  new  that  might  be  introduced 
must  vindicate  for  itself  a  place  in  some  one  of  the  four  divisions. 
Now  it  is  evident  that  the  reading  of  letters  from  apostles,  and, 
when  the  Gospels  were  there,  the  reading  of  the  Gospels,  must 
have  taken  place  under  the  third  part  or  {c),  for  that  was  all :  "Man 
to  Men."    No  one  will  object  to  the  definition  of  this  division  for 


THE  POST-APOSTOLIC  AGE— PUBLIC  WORSHIP         59 

the  Epistles,  and  every  one  will  grant  that  the  Gospels  also  belong 
here,  so  soon  as  I  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  traditions 
concerning  Jesus  always  must  have  been  given  under  this  heading. 
No  one  had  at  that  time  thought  of  calling  the  Gospels  or  the 
Epistles  a  part  of  Holy  Writ ;  the  Old  Testament  was  that.  The 
Gospels  were  the  written  sermon,  that  is  to  say,  the  story  of  Jesus 
written  down  instead  of  merely  being  on  the  lips.  The  Epistles 
were  an  exhortation  in  writing.  Whether  the  Christians  at  the 
beginning  used  the  Jewish  Parashahs  and  Haphtarahs,  the  old 
sections  for  the  law  and  the  prophets,  or  some  new  divisions  of 
their  own,  does  not  concern  us.  All  that  we  have  to  settle  is  that 
originally  in  the  Christian  Church  the  part  (^),  God  to  man,  con- 
sisted solely  of  Old  Testament  lessons. 

It  was,  if  I  do  not  err,  during  the  post-apostolic  age  that  this 
was  changed,  that  the  contents  of  the  part  {b)  came  to  be  enlarged. 
That  can  scarcely  have  come  about  in  any  other  way  than  the 
following.  The  Gospels  and  the  Epistles,  such  of  each  as  the 
Churches  had,  were  read  gradually  more  and  more  regularly. 
The  living  tradition  on  the  lips  of  wandering  preachers  or  of 
more  stationary  clergymen,  lost  day  by  day  in  freshness  as  the 
years  passed  on  and  the  age  of  the  apostles  receded  into  a  dim 
distance.  At  last  it  became  clear,  at  first  it  may  be  in  one 
Church  and  little  by  little  then  in  others,  that  the  new  writings 
had  a  meaning  for  Christian  life  which  the  books  of  the  Old 
Testament  did  not  possess.  Were  the  Old  Testament  books 
authoritative,  then  must  these  also  be  authoritative.  Did  God 
speak  through  the  old  books,  then  must  it  be  His  voice  that  was 
heard  in  the  new  books.  Thus  it  came  about  that  the  Gospels 
and  the  Epistles  passed  from  the  third  part  of  the  services  to  the 
second  part.  The  word  of  God  to  men  was  to  be  found  as  well 
in  them  as  in  the  Old  Testament.  In  the  third  part  of  the 
services  the  sermon  remained.  Sometimes  a  bishop's  letter, 
sometimes  a  letter  from  another  Church  was  added  in  that  place. 
That  was  :  Man  to  Men. 

It  can  scarcely  have  been  at  that  time,  but  at  a  later  date, 
which  we  are  thus  far  not  able  to  determine,  that  the  Old 
Testament  lessons  were  almost  entirely  excluded  from  the 
services  of  the  Church  on  Sabbaths  and  on  Sundays.  Aside  from 
a  few,  comparatively  few,  lessons  on  special  days,  they  were 
remanded  to  the  week  days  of  the  great  fast,  of  Lent. 


60  THE  CANON 

Before  we  really  enter  upon  the  examination  of  the  literature 
of  this  period,  it  is  desirable  to  say  a  word  or  two  about  doctrine, 
even  if  we  are  in  the  present  inquiry  not  concerned  with  doctrinal 
questions.  In  discussing  early  Christian  writings,  objections  are 
often  raised  touching  the  character,  the  genuineness,  or  the 
value  of  the  testimony  of  a  book  because  of  an  alleged  one- 
sidedness  in  it.  This  objection  takes  in  by  far  the  greater 
number  of  cases  the  form  of  disparaging  or  distrusting  or 
disowning  what  is  alleged  to  be  Pauline.  It  is  declared  or 
assumed  that  the  ground  story  of  the  Christian  Church  was 
Petrine,  and  that  only  a  peculiar  connection  with  Paul  personally 
or  with  his  writings,  and  only  a  distinct  aversion  to  Peter  and 
as  well  an  antagonistic  attitude  towards  the  old  mother  centre  at 
Jerusalem  can  possibly  lead,  during  the  prefatory  years  to  the 
Old  Catholic  Church,  to  any  sentences  or  paragraphs  or  whole 
books  that  seem  to  agree  with  the  views  of  the  Apostle  to  the 
Gentiles.  This  is  not  the  place  to  discuss  this  question,  yet  it 
appears  to  me  to  be  important  to  emphasise  at  this  point  the 
opinion  that  I  personally  hold.  It  is  my  impression  that  the 
story  of  Paul's  arrest  at  Jerusalem,  while  carrying  out  in  the 
temple  a  vow  suggested  to  him  by  the  leaders  of  that  one  centre, 
thoroughly  disposes  of  the  notion  that  there  existed  any  difference 
of  doctrine  between  them  that  could  conflict  with  the  love  that 
they  will  at  Jerusalem  have  entertained  for  the  man  who  kept 
bringing  to  them  the  gifts  that  he  had  got  for  them  from  the 
largely  heathen-Christian  Churches  abroad.  Further,  it  is  to  be 
considered  that  Paul  was  the  only  one  who  had  with  a  facile  pen 
spread  out  on  broad  lines  a  conception  of  Christian  views  as  to 
salvation  and  as  to  life.  The  conclusion  that  I  draw  from  this  is, 
that  this  Pauline  Christianity  was,  if  I  may  so  speak,  the  only 
Christianity  of  the  time  immediately  preceding  his  death. 
Nevertheless,  no  one  at  that  uncritical  period  will  have 
thought  of  its  being  peculiarly  Pauline.  It  was  Christianity, 
and  that  was  the  end  of  the  matter. 

At  the  outset  it  is  well  for  us  to  consider  what  we  may  justly 
look  for  in  the  books  of  this  time  that  will  be  of  use  to  us  in 
proving  the  existence  and  defining  the  authoritative  character  of 
the  writings  of  the  New  Testament.  To  put  the  extreme  case, 
some  critics  seem  to  look  for  such  a  completeness  of  reference 
as  the  only  due  and  acceptable  testimony  to  the  presence  and 


THE  POST-APOSTOLIC  AGE— QUOTATIONS  6 1 

valuation  of  the  New  Testament,  that  a  writer  of  the  post- 
apostolic  age  could  only  have  met  their  demands  by  writing  his 
own  thoughts  on  the  margin  of  a  copy  of  the  entire  New 
Testament,  Matthew  to  Revelation,  prefacing  his  work  :  "  Citing 
as  in  duty  bound  the  whole  of  this  sacred  volume,  I  proceed  to 
discuss  .  .  ."  Others  are  apparently  surprised  to  find  that  any 
author  fails  to  name  or  at  least  quote  most  accurately  every 
solitary  book  in  the  New  Testament,  and  they  find  the  lack  of 
both  for  any  book  a  sure  sign  that  the  missing  book  was  not  then 
in  existence  or  not  then  known  to  the  writer.  So  far  from  that 
does  the  everyday  literary  habit  diverge,  that  we  must  on  the  con- 
trary be  profoundly  grateful  when  an  early  writer  mentions  any 
one  of  the  books  by  name,  and  find  great  satisfaction  and  security 
even  if  he  does  not  mention  the  name,  if  he  offer  us  sentences  I 
which,  even  if  re  wrought  with  editorial  licence,  clearly  point  to 
the  said  book  as  their  source.  We  should  never  forget  that  these! 
writers  did  not  write  for  the  purpose  of  giving  us  proofs  of  the  (  ^ 
authority  of  the  New  Testament  books.  How  many  Christian 
essays  might  be  found  to-day  that  on  ten  or  on  thirty  pages 
contain  few  or  no  quotations  from  the  New  Testament,  and  no 
mention  of  the  author  of  a  New  Testament  book  !  And  that 
leads  me  to  emphasise  the  circumstance,  that  we  must  keep  the 
thought  of  a  direct  quotation  in  many  places  in  all  our  researches 
very  much  in  reserve.  If  we  do  this  we  shall  also  hesitate  to 
blame  a  writer  for  careless  quotation,  and  be  slow  to  suppose 
that  slightly  altered  phrases  point  to  other  books  or  other  texts 
than  those  which  we  have  in  hand. 

It  would  be  fitting  to  speak  of  three  degrees  of  references  to 
books.  In  the  first  and  lowest  degree  the  reference  is  to  the 
speaker  or  writer,  at  least  often,  a  latent,  a  sub-conscious, 
an  unconscious  reference.  He  has,  at  some  time  or  other, 
read  the  book  in  question,  and  a  phrase  has  pleased  him, 
has  fastened  itself  in  his  brain.  Now  that  he  comes  to 
speak  or  to  write  upon  the  topic,  this  sentence  appears  on  the 
surface.  It  is  not  clear  to  him  whence  it  comes.  Perhaps  it 
does  not  even  occur  to  him  that  the  words  are  not  his  own. 
The  words  are,  after  all,  not  exactly  the  same  as  in  the  book 
referred  to.  Some  of  them  are  his.  The  phrase  has  a  new  cast. 
But  for  the  man  who  knows  the  source  the  thing  is  plain.  This 
kind  of  citing  may  grow  so  distant  or  so  shadowy  as  to  be  little 


62  THE  CANON 

more  than  an  allusion.  In  the  second  degree  the  act  of  quoting 
may  become  quite  clear  to  the  writer.  He  may,  however,  at  the 
instant  not  know  precisely  whence  he  has  drawn  the  words  or 
precisely  what  the  original  sentence  is.  He  knows  fully  enough 
to  make  with  the  phrase  the  point  that  he  has  in  mind,  and  he 
writes  the  words  down  without  an  instant's  hesitation.  He  is 
not  trying  to  quote,  he  is  trying  to  express  himself.  It  is  totally 
indifferent  to  him  whether  the  quotation  be  exact  or  not.  Let  us 
put  it  on  high  ground.  The  other  author  has  had  a  divine 
thought,  and  has  uttered  it.  He  has  the  same  thought,  and  he 
utters  it  too.  To  whom  the  words  belong,  no  one  cares.  The 
third  degree  is  that  in  which  the  writer  goes  to  the  book  and 
copies  the  precise  words  down  with  painful  accuracy,  and  names 
the  book  and  the  passage.  We  must  always  be  thankful  for 
what  we  thus  get,  for  the  insight  into  the  earlier  writings. 

This  post-apostolic  age  opens  with  a  book  that  excites  our  in- 
terest and  calls  for  our  admiration.  It  is  a  letter,  but  not  a  letter 
of  one  man  to  another.  The  Church  of  God  that  is  living  in  this 
foreign  world  at  the  city  of  Rome,  writes  to  the  Church  of  God 
living  in  this  foreign  world  at  the  city  of  Corinth.  The  Church 
itself  could  not  in  its  corporate  character  seize  a  pen  or  even 
dictate  a  letter.  Tradition  tells  us  that  a  Christian  named  Clement 
wrote  it.  A  certain  halo  encircles  him.  He  is  said  by  some  to 
have  been  from  a  Jewish,  by  others  from  a  heathen  family ;  he  is 
fabled  to  have  had  imperial  connections;  he  is  claimed  as  a  follower 
of  Peter  and  as  a  follower  of  Paul ;  he  is  the  representative  of  law, 
of  the  specifically  Roman  characteristic,  in  the  growing  Church, 
and  a  number  of  writings  gathered  around  his  name,  claiming 
for  themselves  his  authority.  There  is  no  very  good  reason  for 
doubting  that  he  had  himself  heard  the  apostles,  at  least  the  two 
great  apostles.  This  letter  is  probably  from  his  pen.  Someone 
in  Rome  wrote  it,  and  we  are  bound  to  accept  him  till  a  better 
suggestion  can  be  made.  So  far  as  appears,  it  was  written  about 
the  year  95.  The  writer,  in  order  to  have  been  set  to  do  this 
task,  is  to  be  supposed  to  be  one  of  the  older  men  in  the  Roman 
society.  He  may  have  been  fifty  or  sixty  years  old.  If  only 
fifty,  he  will  have  been  about  twenty  years  old  when  PauI  suffered 
martyrdom ;  if  he  were  sixty,  he  will  have  been  thirty.  The 
Roman  Church  claims  him  among  her  first  bishops,  and  I  do  not 
doubt  that  he  was  the  most  prominent  or  influential  man  in  that 


THE  POST-APOSTOLIC  AGE— CLEMENT  OF  ROME     63 

Church  in  his  day,  little  as  I  suppose  that  anyone  up  to  that 
time  in  that  Church  had  received  the  title  of  bishop.  Indeed  this 
seems  to  me  to  be  made  plain  by  the  letter  itself.  All  in  all,  little 
as  we  know  about  him  in  detail,  and  much  as  was  attached  to  his 
name  by  the  fertile  fancy  of  his  admirers,  he  must  have  been  an 
exceptionally  strong  and  good  man.  His  letter  is  an  extremely 
valuable  document.  It  is  well  written,  and  contains  some 
beautiful  passages.  Further  high  opinion  of  Clement's  literary 
powers  is  found  in  the  fact  that,  as  Origen  relates,  he  was  con- 
sidered by  some  to  be  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 

The  value  of  the  testimony  of  Clement  in  this  letter  is 
enhanced  by  the  fact  that  he  is  writing  in  the  name  of  the 
Christians  at  Rome  and  to  the  Christians  at  Corinth.  This 
causes  his  words  to  pass  for  both  of  these  Churches.  He  knows 
about  the  Church  at  Corinth,  and  refers  to  their  Church  lessons, 
as  we  shall  see.  His  letter  shows  no  tokens  of  a  bias  towards 
one  apostle  or  another,  no  inclination  to  use  but  a  single  series 
of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament.  His  language  is  that  of  the 
educated  Greek  Christian.  Certain  words  were  probably  sug- 
gested to  his  mind  by  passages  in  the  New  Testament,  now  in 
Peter,  now  in  Paul,  now  in  John.  We  might  say  that  various 
paragraphs  or  sentences  seemed  to  be  coloured  by  the  cast  of 
mind  shown  in  New  Testament  writings,  were  it  not  that  the  style 
is  so  good  and  so  vigorous  that  we  have  the  feeling  that  the 
author  in  treating  the  points  in  question  has  of  himself  risen  to 
the  level  of  the  authors  who,  in  the  New  Testament,  dealt  with 
the  same  thoughts.  In  his  exquisite  chapter  (ch.  49)  on  love  he 
touches  Proverbs,  but  through  the  medium  of  First  Peter :  "  Love 
covereth  a  multitude  of  sins  " ;  and  at  the  same  time  he  reminds 
us  of  James.  With  his  plea  for  subjection  to  other  Christians  he 
coincides  with  Titus  and  First  Peter  and  Ephesians.  When  he 
refers  to  what  is  pleasing,  good,  and  acceptable,  before  Him  that 
made  us,  he  reminds  us  of  First  Timothy,  though  he  may  simply 
be  using  a  common  form  of  speech. 

Again  he  writes  (ch.  46) :  "  Or  have  we  not  one  God  and  one 
Christ,  and  one  spirit  of  grace  shed  upon  us,  and  one  calling  in 
Christ  ?  "  That  is  one  of  the  cases  of  the  use  of  words  without 
direct  quotation.  Undoubtedly  it  was  Ephesians  and  First  Cor- 
inthians that  led  him  to  use  these  words,  but  no  one  of  the 
passages  in  those  letters  would  have  fitted  in  precisely.     In  just 


64  THE  CANON 

the  same  manner  he  uses  (ch.  35)  Paul's  words  from  the  latter 
part  of  the  first  chapter  of  Romans :  "  Casting  away  from  our- 
selves all  unrighteousness  and  lawlessness,  avarice,  strifes,  both 
malice  and  deceit,  both  whisperings  and  backbitings,  hatred  of 
God,  pride,  and  insolence,  both  vainglory  and  inhospitality.  For 
those  who  do  these  things  are  hated  of  God ;  and  not  only  those 
doing  them,  but  also  those  agreeing  to  them."  How  absurd  it 
would  be  for  any  one  to  say  that  that  was  a  new  text  for  the 
passage  in  Romans  !  When  Clement  quotes  (ch.  34),  "  Eye  hath 
not  seen,"  and  so  on,  it  is  probably  taken  from  First  Corinthians. 
It  is,  at  any  rate,  not  drawn  directly  from  Isaiah.  Perhaps  it 
comes  from  the  Revelation  of  Elias,  but  we  do  not  know.  The 
most  pleasing  allusion  to  the  Epistles  is  to  that  very  Epistle  to 
the  Corinthians.  Clement  says  (ch.  47) :  "Take  up  the  Epistles 
of  Saint  Paul  the  apostle.  What  did  he  first  write  to  you  at 
the  beginning  of  the  gospel  ?  In  truth,  he  wrote  to  you  spirit- 
ually both  about  himself  and  Cephas  and  Apollos,  because  even 
then  there  were  parties  among  you."  That  is  very  good  indeed. 
Observe  how  he  calls  Paul's  message  a  gospel.  Perhaps  the 
thought  may  arise,  that  Clement  only  treated  the  Epistles  in 
this  free  way,  and  that  because  he  knew  the  apostles,  had 
known  them  personally.  Not  at  all.  He  quotes,  and  that 
clearly  from  memory,  and  mixes  up  into  one,  two  passages  from 
Matthew,  one  of  which  is  also  found  in  Mark  and  Luke.  It 
is  not  another  text,  it  is  a  free  quotation,  introduced  by  the 
words  (ch.  46) :  "  Remember  the  words  of  Jesus  our  Lord :  for 
He  said:  Woe  to  that  man.  It  would  have  been  better  for 
him  not  to  have  been  born  than  to  offend  one  of  My  elect ;  it 
would  have  been  better  for  him  to  have  been  bound  round  with 
a  millstone  and  have  been  sunk  into  the  sea  than  to  offend  one 
of  My  little  ones."  In  another  place  he  makes  a  thorough 
combination  of  various  verses  from  Matthew,  partly  found  also 
in  Luke.  He  introduces  the  passage  thus  (ch.  13):  "Especially 
remembering  the  words  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  which  he  uttered  while 
teaching  meekness  and  long-suffering."  It  was  indeed  "re- 
membering," but  not  accurately.  Clement  continues  :  "  For  he 
spoke  thus:  Be  merciful,  that  ye  may  be  mercifully  treated; 
forgive,  that  ye  may  be  forgiven.  As  ye  do,  so  will  be  done  to 
you.  As  ye  give,  so  shall  be  given  to  you.  As  ye  judge,  so 
shall  ye  be  judged.     As  ye  show  mildness,  so  shall  ye  be  mildly 


THE  POST-APOSTOLIC  AGE— CLEMENT  OF  ROME      65 

treated.  With  what  measure  ye  mete,  with  it  shall  be  measured 
for  you."  He  then  calls  that  a  command  and  orders.  The  most 
interesting  thing  about  Clement  is  his  close  acquaintance  with 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  If  we  could  only  know  all  about  it 
that  he  knew.  He  uses  its  words,  sometimes  he  quotes  the  Old 
Testament  with  its  help,  sometimes  he  follows  its  order  of 
thought,  sometimes  he  changes  the  thought  round.  It  was  said 
a  moment  ago  that  Clement  was  suggested  by  someone  before 
Origen  as  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  The  man 
who  proposed  that  was  doubtless  impelled  by  the  contemplation 
of  this  free  and  intimate  use  of  that  Epistle.  But  we  have  no 
reason  to  suppose  that  Clement  wrote  it.  He  knew  the  Epistle 
well  and  he  liked  it  amazingly,  as  every  Christian  and  every  lover 
of  brilliant  writing  should  love  it.  Do  we  find  in  this  letter  any 
traces  of  other  writings  that  seem  to  have  been  of  the  same 
character  as  the  New  Testament  books  ?  No.  There  are 
several  allusions  to  passages  that  we  cannot  verify,  some  of  them 
at  least  closely  attached  to  an  "it  is  written,"  but  they  are 
probably  from  apocryphal  books.  One  is,  for  instance,  attached 
to  a  passage  from  Exodus,  another  to  a  verse  from  the  Psalms, 
although  the  context  of  the  passages  exhibits  nothing  of  the 
kind. 

What  have  we  gained  from  this  early  work  of  a  Christian  who 
was  in  a  position  to  know  all  that  was  going  on  in  the  Roman 
Empire  and  in  the  Christian  Churches,  who  had  in  his  hands  at 
Rome  the  threads  that  ran  out  through  the  provinces,  who  stood 
in  correspondence  with  the  chief  Church  in  Greece?  I  hope 
that  no  one  will  say  that  we  have  gained  but  little,  that  Clement 
should  have  said  more  about  the  books  of  the  New  Testament. 
We  stand  with  him  at  the  close  of  the  first  period  and  at  the 
opening  of  the  second  period.  He  may  almost  be  said  to  belong 
to  both.  It  is  impossible  at  that  time  that  he  should  think  of 
making  a  list  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  for  us.  And 
it  would  be  absurd  for  us  to  think  that  he  only  knew  of  such  of 
these  books  as  he  named  or  quoted.  We  can  only  look  for  two 
great  general  topics  that  his  letter  may  present  to  us  in  a  way  to 
satisfy  our  desire  for  literary  testimony.  One  is  negative,  the 
other  positive.  The  negative  proposition  which  his  letter  might 
be  suited  to  prove,  or  to  favour  so  far  as  it  goes,  is  that  there 
were  for  him  at  the  time  of  writing  the  letter  no  other  writings 
5 


66  THE  CANON 

aside  from  those  of  our  New  Testament  that  he  needed  to  or 
cared  to  quote.  It  is  to  be  conceded  that  he  might  have  known 
of  a  dozen  without  quoting  them,  just  as  he  failed  to  quote  the 
greater  part  of  the  New  Testament  books.  Yet,  nevertheless,  the 
fact  is  that  he  does  not  show  signs  of  knowing  of  other  books 
that  are  Christian  and  of  acknowledged  value,  and  this  is  worth 
a  great  deal.  We  must  not  forget  that  Clement's  Christian 
literature  mirrors  itself  not  merely  in  the  few  direct  quotations. 
It  lies  back  of  his  way  of  thinking,  his  way  of  putting  things,  and 
back  of  his  language.  Nothing  in  all  this  points  to  other  writings 
of  the  given  kind. 

According  to  the  theories  which  represent  his  time  as  one 
that  overflowed  with  evangelical  and  epistolary  literature,  that 
would  lead  us  to  assume  the  existence  of  twenty  or  fifty 
Gospels  and  numerous  letters,  it  would  have  been  almost  im- 
possible for  him  to  have  written  so  much,  so  long  a  letter, 
without  quoting  here  and  there  or  betraying  in  passing  a  know- 
ledge of  the  contents  of  Gospels  and  letters  that  are  unknown 
to  us.  It  is  only  necessary  to  remark,  by  the  bye,  that  the 
unknown  books  which  were  quoted  a  few  times  all  seem  to  have 
been  such  as  belonged  to  the  Apocrypha  of  the  Old  Testament. 
A  negative  is  difficult  of  proof.  The  phenomenon  here  named 
proves  nothing  mathematically.  But  it  goes  to  show  that  in  the 
nineties  of  that  first  century  other  writings  than  ours  were  not 
held  to  be  as  valuable  as  ours  were  held  to  be.  That  is  a  very 
important  point  for  the  consideration  of  the  criticism  before  us. 
The  stream  of  Christian  tradition  is  just  forming,  and  it  is  in  this 
respect  what  a  defender  of  the  high  value  of  the  present  New 
Testament  would  wish  it  to  be.  If  Clement  does  that  for  us 
negatively,  he  may  also  do  much  for  us  positively.  It  is  possible 
that  he  shows  direct  acquaintance  with  James,  First  Peter,  First 
Timothy,  and  Titus,  although  the  quotations  in  view  do  not 
absolutely  force  this  conclusion.  He  knows  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans,  to  his  own  Church,  and  the  Epistle  to  the  Cormthians, 
to  whom  also  he  is  writing,  and  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
perfectly  well,  and  he  quotes  our  Gospels  more  than  once.  Above 
and  beyond  this  his  thoughts  and  his  language,  his  sentences  and 
his  words,  show  in  many  places  the  influence  of  the  books  with 
which  we  are  concerned.  Thus  Clement  supports  positively  the 
existence  of  our  New  Testament.     He  does  not  mention  all  the 


THE  POST-APOSTOLIC  AGE— SIMON   MAGUS  6y 

books,  but  there  are  few  that  he  does  not  seem  to  know.  Again, 
we  assert  that  the  stream  of  tradition  at  this  initial  point  is  all 
that  we  could  expect  it  to  be.  It  can  be  claimed  as  full  evidence 
for  Matthew,  Romans,  First  Corinthians,  and  Hebrews,  and  it 
fits  in  with  the  authenticity  of  the  most  of  the  other  books.  It 
disappoints  no  just  expectations. 

Clement  was  a  member  of  a  well-known  Church,  a  member 
in  good  and  regular  standing.  He  might  be  called  orthodox. 
There  existed,  however,  even  at  that  time  men  who  combated 
Christianity  or  special  forms  of  Christianity.  In  part  they 
were  old  opponents  of  the  apostles,  or  the  successors  of  such 
opponents.  They  represented  in  many  diverse  shadings  a 
Judaism  that  busied  itself  seriously  with  Christianity,  and 
endeavoured  to  enforce  the  law  among  Christians ;  and  this 
phase  of  Judaism  seems  to  have  had  its  foundation  in  Ebionism. 
Another  type  had  some  roots  reaching  back  before  the  birth 
of  Christ  to  Philo.  Philo,  the  Therapeutae,  and  the  Essenes 
were  inclined  to  combine  Judaism  and  Greek  philosophy. 
Philo's  way  of  starting  was  the,  to  him  satisfactory,  proof  that 
all  the  valuable  contents  of  that  philosophy  were  borrowed  from 
Moses.  So  soon  then  as  Christianity  began  to  spread,  this 
Philonian  movement  became,  or  branched  off  into,  what  may 
be  called  Gnostic  Ebionism  or  Ebionitic  Gnosticism.  In  a 
genuine  Jewish  manner,  this  type  also  laid  stress  upon  the  law. 
A  third  type  of  the  movements  against  orthodox  Christianity, 
if  we  may  use  the  modern  term  in  passing,  was  found  in  a  Gnos- 
ticism that  proceeded  from  heathenism  and  was  connected  with 
the  Samaritan  astrologian  from  Gittae.  This  Simon  Magus,  who 
may  be  found  in  the  eighth  chapter  of  Acts,  must  have  been 
a  man  of  some  importance.  Though  we  know  little  directly 
about  him,  we  can  trace  the  influence  of  his  activity  for  a  long 
while.  He  might  be  called  a  match  for  or  a  contrast  to  Clement. 
Clement  became  the  typical  Churchman  in  the  traditions  of  the 
second  century,  and  Simon  was  the  typical  heretic  or  opponent 
of  Christianity.  A  book  called  the  Great  Declaration  is  attributed 
to  Simon,  but  may  be  the  work  of  one  of  his  pupils. 

We  owe  almost  all  our  knowledge  of  these  and  many  other 
heretics  of  the  post-apostolic  age  to  an  anti-heretical  book  called 
the  Philosophumena^  that  was  probably  written  by  Hippolytus  of 
Rome,  or  rather    Bishop  of  Portus,  towards    the   close   of  the 


6S  THE  CANON 

first  quarter  of  the  third  century.  It  is  true  that  the  quotations 
from  the  heretical  writings  are  alleged  to  have  been  furnished 
to  Hippolytus  by  some  assistant,  and  not  to  be  accurate  or  not 
to  be  precisely  what  they  purport  to  be.  It  is  not  likely  that 
they  were  manufactured  out  of  the  whole  cloth.  If  they  be 
not  exactly  from  each  of  the  sources  to  which  they  are  severally 
attributed,  they  may  have  been  extracted  by  a  labour-hating 
hand  from  a  single  book  or  from  one  or  two  heretical  books  that 
were  easy  of  reach.  In  the  case  of  Simon,  the  quotations  are 
probably  right.  A  curious  but  telling  proof  for  the  existence 
of  approved  and  much  read  Christian  books  is  found  in  the 
fact  that  Simon  or  his  pupils  went  to  work  to  write  books  in 
the  name  of  Christ  and  of  the  apostles  in  order  to  deceive 
Christians.  Simon's  book  quotes  from  Matthew  or  Luke  the 
axe  at  the  root  of  the  tree,  from  Luke  the  erring  sheep,  from 
John  the  being  born  of  blood,  and  from  First  Corinthians  the 
not  being  judged  with  the  world.  Of  course,  he  quotes  in  an 
off-hand  way.  Freedom  in  the  use  of  the  words  lay  nearer  for 
him  than  for  Clement.  If  his  pupil  Menander  wrote  that  book, 
these  remarks  would  apply  to  him.  Otherwise  we  know  nothing 
of  this  Menander's  views,  since  a  reference  to  him  in  Irenaeus 
which  has  been  connected  with  Second  Timothy  is  entirely  too 
vague  to  be  of  use. 

One  of  the  Jewish  opponents  or  heretics  was  Cerinthus, 
apparently  by  origin  a  highly  educated  Egyptian  Jew  who 
was  fabled  to  have  been  —  or  was  it  true  ?  —  variously  in 
person  an  opponent  of  the  apostles.  Irenaeus'  story  that  John 
rushed  out  of  a  public  bath  on  seeing  Cerinthus  in  it,  crying 
that  the  roof  might  fall  in  on  such  a  man,  looks  like  a  true 
story.  Later  tradition  said  that  the  roof  did  fall  and  kill 
Cerinthus.  However  that  may  be,  Cerinthus  knew  and  used 
at  least  the  genealogy  in  Matthew  and  quoted  from  that  Gospel 
that  it  was  enough  for  the  disciple  to  be  as  his  master.  The 
chief  interest  in  Cerinthus  attaches  to  Revelation.  Although 
he  was  taken  to  be  a  special  antagonist  of  John's  and  of  Paul's, 
— because  Paul  belittled  the  law, — and  to  have  opposed  the 
genealogy  in  Matthew  to  the  opening  words  of  John's  Gospel, 
he  appears  to  have  occupied  himself  particularly  with  Revelation. 
Cerinthus'  apocalyptic  dreams  and  fancies  were  rewarded  by 
the  attribution    to   him    first  of  the    book   of  Revelation   itself 


THE  POST-APOSTOLIC  AGE— BASILIDES  69 

and  then  much  later  of  the  Gospel  and  the  Epistles  of  John. 
This  was  criticism  run  wild.  The  connection  of  the  Jew  with 
the  Revelation  fits  into  the  newer  theory  of  the  original  Jewish 
basis  for  Revelation.  But  the  upshot  of  the  matter  is  that  the 
Revelation  is  thrown  back  to  a  very  early  date. 

We  may  mention  here  in  passing  two  heresies  or  sects,  one  of 
which  was  partly  the  other  almost  wholly  of  Jewish  extraction. 
The  Snake  Worshippers,  also  called  Ophites  and  Naassenes,  are 
perhaps  the  first  sect  that  called  itself  Gnostic.  They  claimed 
to  have  gotten  their  doctrine  from  Mariamne,  who  got  it  from 
James  the  brother  of  Jesus.  They  quote  or  allude  to  Matthew, 
Luke,  John,  Romans,  First  and  Second  Corinthians,  Ephesians, 
and  Galatians,  possibly  also  to  Hebrews  and  Revelation.  They 
also  refer  to  the  Gospel  to  the  Egyptians  and  to  the  Gospel 
of  Thomas.  This  was  the  Christian  modification  of  an  old, 
a  heathen,  belief.  Their  opposition  to  John  places  them  on 
the  list  of  those  who  prove  the  existence  of  the  Fourth  Gospel. 
The  other  sect  is  that  of  the  Ebionites,  who  say  that  Matthew 
wrote  a  Hebrew  Gospel.  They  seem  to  have  used  apocryphal 
acts  of  the  apostles. 

Another  heretic  named  Basilides,  from  Alexandria,  is 
quoted  direcdy  and  fully  by  Hippolytus.  He  was  a  pupil  of 
Menander's,  and  lived,  so  far  as  we  can  judge  from  the 
accounts,  soon  after  the  beginning  of  the  second  century. 
He  wrote  twenty-four  books  on  the  Gospel.  It  is  clear  that 
he  accepts  in  general  the  books  of  the  New  Testament.  He  ap- 
pears to  know  Matthew,  and  he  quotes  Luke,  John,  Romans,  First 
Corinthians,  Ephesians,  and  Colossians.  He  may  have  alluded 
to  First  Timothy,  and  have  quoted  First  Peter.  Now  it  is 
extremely  strange  that  this  heretic  at  that  early  date  should 
do  what  no  one  had  done  before  him,  according  to  our  literature, 
namely,  quote  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  precisely  in  the 
same  way  as  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament.  For  example  (7^2)  .- 
"  And  this  is  that  which  is  spoken  in  the  Gospels,  He  was  the 
true  light  that  lighteth  every  man  that  cometh  into  the  world." 
He  quotes  (7^5)  from  Romans  :  "  as  it  is  written,"  (7^6)  from  First 
Corinthians  :  "  about  which  the  Scripture  saith,"  from  Ephesians : 
"  as  is  written,"  from  Luke  :  "  that  which  was  spoken,"  and  (727) 
from  John :  "  the  Saviour  saying."  It  seems  very  hard  to  believe 
that  that  was  written  in  the  opening  years  of  the  second  century. 


70  THE  CANON 

It  has  been  suggested  that  he,  the  heretic,  would  be  more  likely 
to  emphasise  the  scriptural  character  of  the  new  books  than 
a  Christian,  who  would  assume  it  silently;  but  I  cannot  see 
the  least  reason  for  such  a  plea.  Since  I  know  of  no  grounds 
upon  which  I  could  assert  it  likely  that  a  Christian  of  a  later 
day  inserted  the  words  mentioned,  it  seems  to  me  to  be  the 
best  thing  to  suppose  that  Basilides  wrote  this  himself  J  But 
I  insist  upon  it  then,  first,  that  we  must  remember  that  the 
life  and  activity  of  such  a  teacher  is  not  likely  to  have  been 
confined  within  a  very  few  years ;  and  second,  that  Basilides, 
if  he  did  not  write  this  book  later,  say  than  in  the  year  130,  may 
himself  have  at  a  still  later  date  modified  the  form  of  quotation 
according  to  the  then  prevailing  custom  of  Christians.  Without 
these  formulas,  Basilides  confirms  in  general  our  New  Testament 
by  exact  quotations,  supposing  that  the  manuscripts  are  correct. 
With  these  formulas  he  advances  the  question  of  the  authority 
of  the  books  a  long  way.  Were  he  of  Jewish  descent,  had  he, 
as  some  sentences  touching  him  would  seem  to  intimate,  Jewish 
connections  and  therefore  habits,  the  use  of  "  as  it  is  written," 
and  of  "the  scripture  saith,"  would  be  the  more  natural  for 
him,  would  glide  more  easily  from  his  pen.  But  precisely 
for  a  Jew  or  for  a  friend  of  the  Jews,  it  would  be  less  likely 
that  he  should  think  of  applying  to  these  new  books  the  formulas 
that  belonged  to  the  sacred  books  of  the  Jews.  In  connection 
with  Basilides,  it  is  important  to  mention  a  contemporary  of 
his  named  Agrippa  Castor.  We  know  very  little  about  him, 
but  one  thing  marks  him  agreeably  for  us.  He  is  the  first 
man,  so  far  as  we  know,  who  in  a  set  book  defended  the  Gospels 
against  a  heretic,  in  his  defence  of  them  against  Basilides.  He 
is  thought  to  have  been  a  Jew. 

These  scattered  opponents  of  Christians  or  of  the  gathering 
Church  have  offered  us  no  signs  of  other  Gospels  than  those  that 
we  have  already  considered,  and  as  little  do  they  point  to  other 
Epistles  than  those  in  the  New  Testament. 

Clement  was  in  Rome,  towards  the  West,  and  was  combined 
with  Corinth.  The  next  step  leads  us  to  the  East,  to  the  second 
capital  of  the  Roman  Empire,  to  Antioch  in  Syria.  This  city 
held  the  first  place  in  Christianity  after  Jerusalem  itself.  It  was 
Antioch  in  which  the  great  missionaries  Paul  and  Barnabas 
sought  their  foothold  for  their  journeys.     And  Peter  must  have 


THE  POST-APOSTOLIC  AGE— IGNATIUS  7 1 

spent  much  time  there.  It  was  a  city  not  only  of  wealth  and 
power,  but  also  of  learning,  and  its  university  was  only  second  to 
that  at  Athens.  Ignatius. was  the  bishop  there  about  the  begin- 
ning of  the  second  century.  His  death  as  martyr  appears 
to  have  taken  place  after  the  year  107  and  before  the  year  117. 
He  wrote  seven  letters,  so  it  is  alleged,  on  his  way  to  martyrdom 
at  Rome, — seven  letters  addressed  to  the  Ephesians,  the 
Magnesians,  the  Trallians,  the  Romans,  the  Philadelphians,  the 
Smyrnaeans,  and  to  Polycarp,  the  bishop  of  Smyrna.  An 
extended  form  of  these  letters  is  a  piece  of  work  from  the  fourth 
century.  The  shorter  forms  seem  to  be  genuine.  Should  they 
be  proved  not  to  be  from  the  hand  or  brain  of  Ignatius  himself, 
— this  has  not  yet  been  proved, — they  would  remain  a  very  early 
and  interesting  monument  of  Christian  literature.  They  afford 
what  we  might  call  a  duly  developed  continuation  of  the  Pastoral 
Epistles,  and  represent  or  place  before  our  eyes  a  condition  of 
affairs  in  the  Churches  which  would  appear  to  be  the  due 
sequence  to  that  portrayed  in  those  letters  of  Paul. 

One  of  the  things  which  strikes  one  strangely  in  his  letter  to 
the  Smyrnaeans  is  his  use  of  the  word  catholic  for  the  Church,  and 
that  both  for  the  general  Church,  the  Church  through  the  world, 
and  for  the  special,  single  Church  as  of  the  universally  accepted 
type.  This  objection  to  the  authenticity  of  this  and  therefore  of 
all  the  letters  is  to  be  met  in  two  ways.  In  the  first  place,  some 
one  must  have  begun  the  use  of  these  words  that  is  current  at  a 
later  time,  and  that  some  one  may  have  been  Ignatius  at  this 
early  period,  however  few  applications  of  the  term  we  may  find  in 
the  immediately  succeeding  literature,  which  had  but  little  occasion 
to  use  it ;  but  it  is  used  in  more  limited  sense  by  the  Smyrnaeans 
in  their  letter  to  the  Philomelians.  And,  in  the  second  place, 
nothing  would  be  easier  than  to  suppose  that  the  word  was  in 
each  of  the  six  places  in  which  it  occurs  an  interpolation  by  a 
later  hand.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  word  fits  in  well  where  it 
stands,  and  that  it  agrees  with  the  style  of  the  writer,  but  it  might 
easily  have  crept  into  the  text  from  marginal  glosses  in  one  of  the 
early  manuscripts. 

It  agrees  with  the  style  of  the  writer,  and  particularly  with 
the  circumstances  under  which  the  letters  were  written,  that 
quotations  are  a  rare  thing,  that  they  are  short,  and  that 
they    are    evidently    from    memory.      For   our    purpose   it   is 


72  THE  CANON 

enough  to  observe  that  the  author  clearly  knows  our  New 
Testament  in  general.  The  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  John  appear 
to  have  been  either  his  favourites  or  the  ones  better  known  to 
him.  He  knew  the  Epistles  of  Paul  well.  But  at  one  point  he 
is  supposed  to  quote  from  an  apocryphal  book  or  from  an  other- 
wise unknown  Gospel.  He  writes  (Smyr.  3) :  "  And  when  he  came 
to  those  around  Peter,  he  said  to  them :  Take,  touch  Me,  and 
see  that  I  am  not  a  bodiless  spirit."  It  may  very  well  be  from 
the  Gospel  of  Peter,  his  teaching,  or  his  preaching,  or  from  the 
Gospel  to  the  Hebrews  as  a  parallel  to  the  passage  in  Luke. 
The  word  "  take  "  is  odd  at  that  place.  That  is  enough.  It  is 
interesting  and  beautiful  to  read  in  the  letter  to  the  Philadelphians 
the  words  (ch.  8) :  "  For  me  Jesus  Christ  is  archives."  This  same 
letter  gives  us  for  the  first  time  the  word  Christianism  as  a  parallel 
to  Judaism.  It  was  appropriate  that  Christianity  should  get  its 
name  from  the  city  in  which  the  word  Christian  was  coined. 
Ignatius,  if  genuine,  agrees  well  with  the  stream  that  we  conceive 
to  have  flowed  forth  from  the  first  century.  If  the  letters  be  not 
genuine,  they  give  the  same  testimony  for  a  period  a  trifle  later, 
perhaps  at  or  soon  after  the  middle  of  the  second  century. 

An  interesting  piece  of  testimony  to  the  Gospels  must  be  men- 
tioned here.  Eusebius  quotes  in  his  Church  History  (3,  39)  words 
that  Papias  drew  from  a  presbyter  called  John,  who  probably 
lived  about  the  turn  of  the  century.  This  John  says  that  Mark 
wrote  his  Gospel  according  to  what  he  heard  from  Peter,  and  that 
Matthew  wrote  "  Words  "  or  "  Sayings  "  in  Hebrew,  which  means 
in  Aramaic.  This  must  be  examined  closely.  It  reads  :  "  And 
this  the  presbyter  said :  Mark  the  interpreter  of  Peter  wrote 
down  accurately,  yet  not  in  order,  so  far  as  he  [Peter]  told  what 
was  said  or  done  by  the  Christ.  For  he  did  not  hear  the  Lord, 
nor  was  he  a  disciple  of  His,  but  afterwards  as  I  said  of  Peter, 
who  used  to  give  lessons  according  as  it  was  necessary,  but  not 
as  if  he  were  making  a  collection  in  order  of  the  Lord's  words, 
so  that  Mark  made  no  mistake  in  thus  writing  down  some  things 
as  he  remembered  them.  For  he  took  care  of  one  thing,  and 
that  was,  not  to  leave  out  anything  he  heard  or  to  give  anything 
in  it  in  a  wrong  way."  This  presbyter  named  John  probably 
lived  at  Ephesus  at  the  same  time  that  the  Apostle  John  was 
passing  his  last  years  there.  He  calls  Mark  the  interpreter  of 
Peter.     He    might    have    said    private    secretary.     The    word 


THE  POST-APOSTOLIC  AGE— POLYCARP  73 

interpreter,  however,  need  not  be  limited  to  the  literary  services 
here  discussed,  but  may,  if  we  consider  the  circumstances,  have  a 
further  interest  for  us,  quite  aside  from  the  story  about  Mark's 
Gospel.  Peter  the  Aramaic  Palestinian  probably  spoke  some 
Greek  in  Galilee  and  Judea,  but  as  an  older  man  in  the  foreign 
capital  it  was  doubtless  desirable  for  him  to  have  a  younger  man 
at  hand  to  do  any  interpreting  that  was  necessary.  Whether  that 
has  anything  to  do  with  the  Greek  of  First  Peter,  is  a  question 
for  another  place.  What  I  have  written  "  [Peter]  told  "  may  also 
be  rendered  "  [Mark]  remembered  " ;  the  sense  remains  the  same ; 
in  each  case  Peter  tells  and  Mark  remembers.  The  giving  of 
lessons,  as  I  have  written  it,  is,  of  course,  his  teaching,  telling, 
explaining  what  Jesus  said  or  did.  That  Peter  did  according  as 
occasion  offered,  according  to  the  needs  of  the  occasion,  or  we 
may  say,  of  the  listeners.  The  reference  to  Matthew  is  as 
follows :  "  Matthew  then  wrote  the  sayings  in  Hebrew  dialect, 
and  each  one  translated  them  as  he  was  able."  The  way  in 
which  Eusebius  puts  this  makes  it  look  as  if  this  too  came  from 
that  presbyter  John.  For  my  part,  I  have  no  doubt  that  these 
Aramaic  sayings  were  the  book  that,  after  it  was  translated  into 
Greek,  became  the  chief  source  for  Mark,  and  then  for  the  writer 
of  the  first  Gospel  and  for  Luke. 

Perhaps  we  may  attach  to  the  year  117  tentatively  a  few 
pages  from  the  letter  to  Diognetus,  which  has  by  some  been 
supposed  to  have  been  addressed  to  Marcus  Aurelius'  tutor 
Diognetus ;  we  have  here  in  mind  the  so-called  first  part  of  that 
letter;  the  second  part  is  a  totally  different  thing,  perhaps 
thirty  years  later  in  date.  This  may  be  from  Greece.  We  know 
little  about  it,  but  we  see  in  it  our  stream  of  New  Testament 
tradition,  not  in  quotations,  but  in  the  whole  contents.  It  places 
Paul's  Epistles  and  John's  Gospel  clearly  before  us  in  its  subjects 
and  in  its  phrases  and  in  its  words. 

When  referring  to  Ignatius,  I  named  his  letter  to  Polycarp. 
Let  us  turn  to  him.  Polycarp  was  probably  born  in  the  year  69, 
five  years  after  Paul's  martyrdom ;  and  he  himself  was  burned  at 
Smyrna,  where  he  w^as  bishop,  on  February  23rd,  155.  The 
stadion  in  which  he  was  burned  is  still  to  be  seen  on  the  hill 
south  of  the  city.  He  wrote  a  letter  to  the  Philippians,  Paul's 
beloved  Philippians,  in  Macedonia,  just  after  the  martyrdom  of 
Ignatius.     Now  I  wish  to  lay  special  stress  upon  this  Polycarp, 


74  THE  CANON 

To  use  a  figure  that  must  not  be  forced,  he  is  the  keystone  of 
the  arch  that  supports  the  history  of  Christianity,  and  therefore 
of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  from  the  time  of  the 
apostles  to  the  close  of  the  second  century.  To  begin  with,  as 
was  said,  he  appears  to  have  been  born  about  69,  and  to  have 
been  converted  by  one  of  the  apostles,  perhaps  by  John,  whose 
disciple  he  probably  was.  Irenseus,  bishop  at  Lyons,  who  was 
born  in  Asia  Minor,  of  whom  we  have  to  speak  later,  saw 
Polycarp  when  a  boy.  Irenaeus  it  is  who  tells  us  that  he  was  a 
pupil  of  John  and  bishop  at  Smyrna.  To  complete  the  matter, 
the  Church  at  Philomelion  in  Phrygia  asked  the  Church  in 
Smyrna  to  tell  them  about  the  martyrs  of  that  year — the  year  in 
which  Polycarp  was  burned,  and  we  actually  have  in  our  hands 
the  account  written  by  the  Church  of  Smyrna  for  the  Philomelians 
and  for  all  Christians.  Every  Christian  should  know  Polycarp's 
answer  (ch.  9)  to  the  governor's  demand  before  the  multitude 
in  the  stadion.  The  governor  had  tried  to  get  him  to  swear  by 
the  emperor,  but  in  vain.  He  cried  out  again :  "  Swear,  and  I 
release  you.  Revile  Christ ! "  Polycarp  said  :  "  Eighty  and  six 
years  do  I  serve  Him,  and  He  has  never  done  me  wrong.  And 
how  can  I  blaspheme  my  king  that  saved  me  ?  "  It  was  a  long 
fight.  The  governor  did  not  wish  to  burn  the  old  man  who  had 
willingly  come  up  to  the  stadion  to  declare  his  faith.  But  soon 
the  smoke  of  his  fire  curled  up  out  of  the  stadion  and  was  seen 
from  the  city  and  from  afar  upon  that  gulf,  calling  upon  heaven 
and  earth  to  witness  to  the  death  of  a  Christian.  That  is  the 
keystone :  A  pupil  of  John,  known  to  Irenaeus,  at  Rome  to 
discuss  with  the  Bishop  Anicetus  the  Easter  question,  proclaimed 
by  his  Church  at  his  death. 

A  few  words  then  about  his  letter  to  the  Philippians.  They 
and  Ignatius  too  had  asked  him  to  send  to  them  the  letters 
of  Ignatius,  and  he  refers  to  their  having  sent  their  letters — or 
the  one  letter  that  they  had  received  from  Ignatius? — to  him 
to  be  forwarded  to  Syria.  In  closing  (ch.  13)  he  says  that 
he  sends  with  this  letter  the  letters  that  Ignatius  had  sent  to 
Smyrna:  "and  others  as  many  as  we  had  in  our  hands."  That 
is  an  excellent  example  of  what  was  said  above  about  the  inter- 
course between  the  Churches.  Think  of  these  few  lines : 
Polycarp's  surroundings  connect  Antioch  in  Syria  where  Ignatius 
was  bishop,  Smyrna  where  he  himself  was  bishop,  Philippi   in 


THE   POST-APOSTOLIC   AGE— DIDACHE  75 

Macedonia  to  which  he  wrote,  Philomelion  in  Phrygia  to  which 
his  Church  wrote  about  him,  Rome  where  he  conferred  with 
Anicetus,  and  Lyons  where  Irenaeus  who  had  seen  him  died 
about  202.  And  this  man  connects  through  Irenaeus  alone  the 
Apostle  John  who  saw  Jesus  with  the  beginning  of  the  third 
century.  There  may  have  been  a  dozen  Christians  besides  who 
knew  him,  and  who  carried  his  traditions  on  to  the  third  century. 
What  did  this  Polycarp  know  about  the  books  of  the  New 
Testament?  His  letter  is  full  of  the  New  Testament.  It  is 
plain  that  he  had  in  his  hands  the  Gospel  of  Matthew,  and  he 
probably  had  all  four  Gospels  ;  he  had  all  the  Epistles  of  Paul,  he 
had  First  Peter  and  First  John,  and  he  had  that  letter  of  Clement 
of  Rome.  I  have  no  doubt  that  he  refers  to  Acts  in  his  first 
chapter.  That  he  did  not  set  about  giving  precise  quotations  is 
due  to  the  habit  of  his  time  and  to  his  way  of  writing.  He  is,  if 
I  may  say  so,  saturated  with  Peter,  but  he  is  also  Pauline  to  a 
very  high  degree.  We  shall  not  meet  with  a  second  Polycarp, 
but  we  do  not  need  a  second. 

The  next  book  that  we  have  to  look  at  is  a  new  one.  It  is 
the  Teaching  of  the  Apostles,  and  was  only  discovered  a  few 
years  ago.  It  may  be  dated  in  the  form  in  which  we  have  it 
about  the  year  120.  It  is,  however,  without  doubt  in  part  much 
older  than  that.  One  main  source,  or  main  part  of  it,  is  not 
Jewish  Christian,  but  out  and  out  Jewish  in  its  origin.  For  this 
Teaching  the  Old  Testament  alone  is  Scripture.  It  contains 
over  twenty  allusions  to  New  Testament  books,  or  short 
quotations,  of  which  a  number  are  what  we  may  call  a  free 
reproduction  of  Matthew.  Three  or  four  quotations  seem  to 
be  a  combination  of  Matthew  and  Luke.  It  shows  no  traces  of 
a  definitely  other  Gospel.  It  is  in  many  thoughts  and  phrases 
much  like  John,  but  it  does  not  quote  him.  One  very  interesting 
point  has  respect  to  the  Lord's  Prayer.  Though  we  have  little 
knowledge  of  the  everyday  life  of  the  first  Christians,  we  may 
feel  sure  that  they  were  in  the  habit  of  using  that  prayer  daily. 
The  Jews  had  their  "  Hear,  O  Israel " ;  and  John  the  Baptist  gave 
his  disciples  a  form  of  prayer ;  and  precisely  this  latter  instance 
led  the  disciples  of  Jesus  to  ask  Him  for  a  prayer,  and  brought 
forth  from  His  lips  this  one.  Now  it  looks  as  if  the  writer  of 
the  Teaching,  or  as  if  some  scribe  in  copying  it  off,  had  not 
drawn  the  prayer  from  the  text  of  Matthew,  but  had  written  it 


-jG  THE  CANON 

down  as  he  remerrbered  it  from  his  own  daily  use  of  it.  It  will 
be  observed  that  we  cannot  prove  this,  yet  it  seems  to  be  likely 
that  the  various  readings  came  from  that  source.  We  shall  later 
find  a  peculiarity  in  this  prayer  in  Tertullian,  that  perhaps  was 
caused  in  the  same  manner.  The  older,  originally  Jewish 
opening  part,  the  Two  Ways,  contains  no  direct  quotation  from 
the  Old  Testament,  but  the  second,  newer  part  gives  us  two, 
from  Zechariah  and  Malachi.  One  is  introduced  by  the  formula, 
"as  was  spoken,"  and  the  other  by  the  words,  "For  this  is  the 
(offering)  named  by  the  Lord."  Four  times  we  find  in  the 
second  part  mention  of  the  Gospel  with  words  drawn  perhaps 
from  Matthew.  It  is,  however,  possible  that  these  quotations 
are  a  later  addition.  They  are  characterised  twice  :  "  as  ye 
have  in  the  Gospel "  (to  which  "  of  our  Lord  "  is  once  added), 
once :  "  as  the  Lord  commanded  in  the  Gospel,"  and  once : 
"  according  to  the  dogma  of  the  Gospel."  Once  we  read  (ch.  9) : 
"  About  this  the  Lord  hath  said,  Give  not  the  holy  thing  to  the 
dogs."  But  if  we  do  not  find  direct  quotations,  we  find  plenty 
of  sense  and  sentences  that  must  have  come  from  Matthew  and 
Luke  and  John,  and  Paul's  Epistles,  and  First  Peter. 

The  writer  knows  the  majority  of  our  New  Testament  books, 
and  uses  their  words  as  freely  as  if  he  knew  them  well  from  begin- 
ning to  end.  Of  course  he  knows  books  that  he  does  not  happen 
to  quote.  He  is  busy  with  the  thoughts  and  not  with  the  duty 
of  quoting  all  the  books  for  the  benefit  of  the  criticism  of  the 
canon.  The  testimony  of  this  Teaching  is  all  the  more  valuable 
because  it  is  such  a  convenient  Christian  handbook.  It  certainly 
was  then  used  very  widely,  and  it  passed  largely  into  later,  more 
extended  writings  of  the  same  general  character.  The  question 
may  present  itself  to  some  minds,  how  it  comes  to  pass  that 
here  as  elsewhere  thus  far,  the  words  of  the  Gospel  to  so  great 
an  extent  seem  to  be  those  or  nearly  those  of  the  Gospel 
according  to  Matthew.  I  will  say  in  advance  that  it  does  not 
occur  to  me  to  suppose  that  none  of  these  early  writers  had 
written  Gospels,  that  their  allusions  or  similarities  are  due  alone 
to  oral  tradition.  But  why  so  often  from  Matthew,  so  seldom 
from  Mark  and  Luke?  A  definite  answer  is  impossible.  But 
we  may  reflect  in  the  first  place  that  even  to-day  many  people 
read  more  of  Matthew  than  of  the  other  two.  To-day  its 
position  at  the  opening  of  the  volume  makes  it  easier  to  reach. 


THE  POST-APOSTOLIC  AGE—BARNABAS  'J'J 

In  the  second  place,  there  is  much  in  it  that  attracts  the  mind. 
The  rich  and  full  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  that  the  author  com- 
bined for  himself,  draws  all  eyes  to  Matthew.  Think,  too,  of 
the  groups  of  miracles  and  parables.  Think  of  the  majestic 
effect  of  the :  "  This  was  done  because  it  was  written,"  and  the 
impressive  fulfilment  of  prophecy.  The  great  preference  of 
commentators  for  Matthew  depends  doubtless  partly  on  its 
initial  position,  but  these  other  thoughts  will  have  been  of 
moment.  In  manuscripts  we  sometimes  find  Matthew  with  a 
full  commentary,  [John  with  a  full  one],  Luke  with  a  commentary 
on  passages  not  already  treated  in  Matthew,  and  Mark  with  no 
commentary,  or  but  a  very  short  one,  because  its  matter  is  found 
in  Matthew  and  Luke. 

Barnabas  the  apostle,  but  not  one  of  the  Twelve,  is  one  of 
the  most  striking  figures  in  the  early  days  of  Christianity.  He 
stands  out  before  us  as  the  man  who  started  Paul  upon  the 
great  mission  journeys,  who  said  to  him  :  Come  with  me.  From 
Cyprus,  long  at  Jerusalem,  much  at  Antioch,  no  small  traveller, 
he  must  have  had  a  wide  view  of  Christianity.  He  died,  it 
may  be,  early  in  the  sixties,  before  Paul.  It  would  seem  very 
appropriate  that  he  should  write  a  book  of  some  kind  for  the 
Christians.  Have  we  one  from  him?  Perhaps  so.  But  the 
book  that  bears  his  name,  the  so-called  letter  of  Barnabas,  is 
not  from  his  pen.  Sometimes  it  has  been  attributed  to  him, 
but  wrongly.  In  connection  with  it,  the  question  as  to  its  having 
a  right  to  a  place  in  the  New  Testament,  if  it  were  really  from 
Barnabas,  has  been  mooted.  For  myself  I  do  not  doubt  at  all 
that  it  would  have  been  one  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament 
if  he  had  written  it.  But  this  statement  must  be  accompanied 
by  the  remark  that  if  he  had  written  it,  it  would  have  been 
another,  a  different  book.  I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  everything 
that  an  apostle  penned  would  belong  to  the  New  Testament. 
A  book  by  Matthew  about  the  custom-houses  in  Palestine  would 
not  have  been  a  part  of  the  New  Testament,  whether  written 
before  or  after  his  becoming  an  apostle.  Just  as  little  would 
a  letter  of  Paul's  about  tent-cloth  that  had  been  ordered  and 
woven  have  been  added  to  his  thirteen  Epistles.  At  the  same 
time,  in  spite  of  all  I  have  previously  said,  we  have  no  reason 
to  suppose  that  the  apostles  were  extremely  inclmed  to  write  a 
number  of  books.     And  I  doubt  not  that  the  most  of  what  any 


y^  THE  CANON 

of  them  wrote  after  their  joining  Jesus,  will  have  had  some 
connection  with  Him  and  His  word  and  works  and  the  life  of 
the  Christians. 

This  letter  of  Barnabas  is  a  work  of  the  second   century; 
perhaps  it  was  written  about  the  year  130,  and  at  Alexandria. 
The  temple   had  been  long   destroyed.     Christians  had  begun 
at  that   place,  at   the  place  where   the  writer  lived,  at  least  to 
give  up  the  observance  of  the  Jewish  Sabbath,  and  to  confine 
themselves   to    the    Lord's    Day.      The    letter    is   full    of    the 
Old  Testament,  but  it  is  the  Old  Testament,  on  the  one  hand 
allegorised,    on   the   other   misunderstood,   ill   appreciated,    run 
down.     He,  the  unknown  author,  is  on  the  lookout  for  odd  and 
striking  things.     He  agrees  to  the  old  tradition  given  by  Suidas 
as  Etrurian,  which  counts  six  periods  of  a  thousand  years  each 
before  the  Creation,  and  six  of  the  same  length  after  the  Creation. 
The  notion  pleases  him  that  Abraham's  family  of  three  hundred 
and  eighteen  prefigured  the  name  of  Jesus  and  the  figure  of  the 
cross,  because  in  Greek  the  number  eighteen  gives  the  letters 
*'Je"  for  Jesus,  and  the  number  three  hundred  the  letter  T, 
which  is  clearly  the  cross.     If  he  could  only  have  known  that  the 
first  general  council  at  Nice  two  hundred  years  later  was  going  to 
be  attended  by  three  hundred  and  eighteen  Fathers,  his  happiness 
would  certainly  have  been   much  greater.     Barnabas  has   two 
quotations  from  Matthew.     The  sentences  quoted  are  so  short, 
and  are  of  such  an  easy  kind  to  be  remembered,  that  the  oral 
tradition  might  be  supposed  to  have  passed  them  directly  on  to 
Barnabas,  were  it  not  that  in  the  one  case  he  directly  writes : 
"  as  is  written,"  and  thus  shows  that  he  knows  of  written  Gospels. 
This  application  of  the  phrase,   "it   is  written,"  which  is  the 
technical  way  of  quoting  the  sacred  books  of  the  Old  Testament, 
may  be  the  earliest  case  of  this  use  of  the  New  Testament  books 
as  Scripture.    In  one  place  (ch.  7")  he  quotes  words  of  Jesus  that 
we  have  not  in  our  Gospels.     He  has  been  telling  about  the  goat 
of  the  day  of  atonement,  and  that  the  reddened  wool  was  to  be 
put  upon  a  thorn-bush  when  the  goat  was  driven  out  into  the 
wilderness.     This  he  declares  to  be  a  figure  for  the  Church  in 
reference  to  Jesus,  seeing  that  if  any  one  tries  to  get  the  wool 
he  will  suffer  from  the  thorns,   and  must  be   under  stress  to 
become  the  master  of  the  wool.     "  Thus,"  he  says,  "  they  who 
wish  to  see  me,  and  to  attain  to  my  kingdom,  must  be  under 


THE   POST-APOSTOLIC  AGE— VALENTINUS  79 

Stress  and  suffering  to  take  me."  But  these  words  may  well  be 
simply  a  combination  of  the  author's  and  not  be  drawn  from  an 
unknown  Gospel.  They  remind  us  of  Paul's  words  in  Acts  on 
reaching  Derbe,  after  being  stoned  and  left  for  dead  at  Lystra. 
This  letter  has  passages  which  remind  us  of  Paul  and  of  John. 
The  written  books  are,  however,  still  of  less  account  than  the 
tradition  by  word  of  mouth. 

During  the  first  half  of  the  second  century  an  Egyptian 
named  Valentinus  applied  himself  to  the  question  of  the  origin 
of  all  things,  and  the  sequence  of  the  universe.  He  worked  out 
an  elaborate  system  of  spiritual  powers,  starting  from  the  original 
source  of  all  things  and  running  through  thirty  eons.  From  the 
last  eon,  the  Mother,  came  Christ  and  a  shadow.  The  latter 
produced  the  Creator  and  the  devil,  with  their  human  races. 
Jesus  then  came  as  the  fruit  of  all  thirty  eons,  in  a  merely 
apparent  body,  and  took  the  spiritual  people,  the  children  of 
the  Mother,  and  the  Mother  herself  into  the  spiritual  kingdom. 
He  alleged  that  his  doctrine  was  connected  with  Paul  through 
Theodas.  The  quotations  of  his  writings  that  we  have  are 
scanty,  and  some  of  them  are  not  of  undoubted  authority.  Yet 
he  is  a  witness  for  the  body  of  the  New  Testament  books.  His 
whole  system,  the  beings  that  he  uses,  or  rather  their  names,  are 
drawn  from  the  Gospel  of  John.  His  first  three  names,  after  the 
original  source  of  all  things,  are  Mind,  the  Father,  and  Truth ; 
and  the  following  four  are  Word,  Life,  Man,  Church.  Of  course, 
those  are  good  words  in  common  use ;  but  their  use  in  this  way 
by  a  Christian  points,  I  think,  unmistakably  to  John's  Gospel. 
But  we  have  in  the  case  of  Valentinus  a  witness  of  high  authority 
and  credibility,  namely  Tertullian,  and  he  says  that  Valentinus 
appeared  to  use  the  whole  New  Testament  as  then  known.  He 
did,  it  is  true,  or  Tertullian  thought  so,  alter  the  text,  but  he 
did  not  reject  one  book  and  another.  Perhaps  Valentinus  only 
used  a  different  text  from  Tertullian.  In  Clement  of  Alexandria 
we  find  a  reference  to  Valentinus  that  looks  interesting  for  the 
criticism  of  the  canon.  Clement  makes  Valentinus  distinguish 
between  what  was  written  in  the  public  books  and  what  was 
written  in  the  Church.  That  looks  like  a  distinction  between 
books  that  everybody,  Jew  and  Gentile,  might  read,  and  books 
that  only  Christians  were  permitted  to  read.  But  we  have  no 
clue  to  the  exact  meaning  of  his  words.     Three  of  the  books  of 


8o  THE  CANON 

the  New  Testament — Luke,  John,  and  First  Corinthians — are 
referred  to  by  him. 

From  one  of  the  pupils  of  Valentinus,  Ptolemseus,  we  have 
a  number  of  fragments  which  contain  quotations  from  Matthew, 
Mark,  Luke,  John,  Romans,  First  Corinthians,  Galatians,  Ephes- 
ians,  and  Colossians.  We  find,  besides  these  fragments  that 
Irenaeus  has  kept  for  us,  in  Epiphanius  an  interesting  letter  written 
by  Ptolemseus  to  a  Christian  woman  named  Flora ;  and  he  refers 
in  it  to  Matthew,  John,  Romans,  First  Corinthians,  and  Ephes- 
ians.  Irenaeus  storms  at  the  Valentinians  because  they  wrote  a 
new  Gospel  called  the  Gospel  of  Truth ;  and  Epiphanius  tells  of 
two  other  Gospels  written  by  Gnostics,  the  Gospel  of  Eve  and 
the  Gospel  of  Perfection.  Should  we  call  these  apocryphal 
Gospels  if  we  had  them  in  our  hands,  and  place  them  beside  the 
Gospel  of  the  Infancy  and  the  Gospel  of  Thomas,  for  example  ? 
I  very  much  doubt  it.  I  do  not  suppose  that  these  Gospels 
offered  an  account  of  the  life  and  works  of  Jesus  and  the  apostles. 
They  were  probably  more  or  less  fantastic  representations  of  the 
doctrines  of  the  special  Gnostic  sects,  the  Gospel  of  Truth  of 
the  Valentinian  sect,  from  which  they  proceeded.  We  have 
directly  from  the  Valentinian  school  most  important  testimony, 
not  only  to  the  existence,  but  also  to  the  high  value  of  the 
Gospels  which  are  in  the  New  Testament ;  for  Heracleon,  a 
near  friend  of  Valentinus',  wrote  upon  the  Gospels.  Perhaps 
he  wrote  a  commentary  to  one  or  all  of  them,  perhaps  he 
commented  particular  passages  that  seemed  to  him  to  be  more 
interesting.  We  cannot  tell.  Origen  quotes  his  comments  on 
John;  and  Clement  of  Alexandria  mentions  a  comment  of  his 
on  a  passage  in  Luke.  And  the  quotations  give  references  to 
Matthew,  Romans,  First  Corinthians,  and  Second  Timothy. 
All  that  shows  that  these  branches  of  Christianity  held  to  the 
main  books  of  the  New  Testament.  Nothing  shows  that  they 
dreamed  of  putting  their  books  upon  a  level  with  the  books  that 
became  afterwards  a  part  of  our  New  Testament.  Heracleon 
quoted  the  Preaching  of  Peter,  but  we  do  not  know  that  he 
considered  it  scripture.  One  branch  of  the  followers  of  Valen- 
tinus, the  pupils  of  a  Syrian  named  Mark,  are  said  to  have 
written,  to  have  forged  Gospels,  but  they  went  back,  so  far  as 
we  can  see,  only  to  our  four  Gospels,  not  to  any  unknown 
or  apocryphal  Gospels. 


THE  POST-APOSTOLIC  AGE— MARCION  8l 

We  must  now  turn  to  a  man  who  claims  a  great  deal  of 
attention.  His  name  is  Marcion.  His  father  was  the  Bishop 
of  Sinope  on  the  coast  of  Paphlagonia.  He  is  in  every  way  the 
most  active  and  influential  man,  bearing  the  name  of  Christian, 
between  Paul  and  Origen.  The  position  of  the  Christian  Church 
towards  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament  seemed  to  him  to 
be  totally  false.  He  quarrelled  with  his  father  and  went  to 
Rome.  At  Rome  he  quarrelled  with  the  Church  and  left  it. 
Polycarp  called  him  "Satan's  firstborn."  In  spite  of  all 
difficulties  he  set  about  founding  a  Church  of  his  own  about 
the  year  144,  and  he  succeeded.  Churches  of  his  sect  were  to 
be  found  in  Syria  as  late  as  the  fifth  century.  The  thing  that 
interests  us  about  Marcion  in  the  criticism  of  the  canon  is  the 
fact  that  he  set  to  work  to  make  a  New  Testament  for  himself. 
That  is  to  say,  not  that  he  wrote  the  books,  but  that  he  decided 
upon  them,  passed  judgment  upon  their  merits,  their  value, 
their  right  to  a  place  in  a  Christian  collection.  Here  we  find 
in  fact,  so  far  as  the  authority  of  this  Church  founder  could  be 
said  to  determine  anything  duly,  a  canon.  Here  for  the  first 
time  in  the  history  of  the  Christian  Church  a  clear  cut,  definitely 
rounded  off  New  Testament  offers  itself  to  view.  He  was  led 
in  his  selection  of  the  books  by  his  opinions  about  the  course 
of  history.  The  usual  supposition  that  the  God  of  the  Old 
Testament  and  the  Messiah  of  the  Old  Testament  were  the 
God  and  the  Christ  of  the  Christians  was  wildly  wrong.  The 
God  who  made  the  world  was  the  Demiurge ;  he  was  just,  in  a 
way,  but  only  just,  not  good.  He  was  in  the  Old  Testament 
hardhearted  and  cruel  and  bloodthirsty.  Jesus  let  Himself  be 
called  the  Messiah  simply  to  fit  in  with  the  thoughts  of  the 
people,  ^e  was  not  the  son  of  a  virgin,  because  that  was 
impossible.  He  simply  came  down  from  heaven  and  afterwards 
went  back  to  heaven.  Of  course,  then,  Marcion  cast  the  Old 
Testament  aside.  A  Jewish  Gospel  like  Matthew  was  nothing 
for  him.  Why  John  did  not  suit  him  it  is  hard  to  say ;  probably 
the  author  was  too  Jewish  for  him,  and  besides  it  joined  Jesus 
directly  with  the  creation  of  the  bad  Demiurge's  world.  He 
chose  for  himself  the  Pauline  Gospel  according  to  Luke,  and 
omitted  from  it  what  his  unerring  eye  knew  to  be  from  the 
wrong  sphere,  the  sphere  of  the  Demiurge.  Acts  had  too  much 
of  Peter  in  it.  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  it  is  hardly  necessary 
6 


82  THE  CANON 

K)  say,  was  altogether  impossible.     The  Pastoral  Epistles  were 
probably  too  local. 

In  the  end,  then,  his  New  Testament,  we  may  say  his 
Bible,  consists  of  the  Gospel  part  or  the  Gospel  of  Luke, 
and  of  the  Apostle  part  or  the  ten  Epistles  of  Paul;  he 
called  Ephesians  the  Epistle  to  the  Laodiceans.  His  Gospel 
began  perhaps  with  these  words :  "  In  the  fifteenth  year  of 
Tiberius  Caesar,  in  the  times  of  Pilate,  Jesus  descended  into 
Capernaum,  a  city  of  Galilee."  Therewith  he  had  disposed  of 
all  birth  accounts  and  genealogical  tables.  Towards  the  close 
the  Crucifixion  must  have  been  omitted.  And  the  identification 
of  the  person  of  Jesus  may  have  been  joined  directly  to  the 
thought  that  He  really  was  an  "  appearance,"  a  "  spirit."  His 
Apostle  began  with  Galatians,  after  which  the  Epistles  to  the 
Corinthians,  Romans,  and  Thessalonians  followed.  Then  came 
the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  but  named  Laodiceans.  Colossians, 
Philippians,  and  Philemon  finished  the  book.  What  would  the 
Church  have  been  if  this  headstrong  man  had  succeeded  in 
carrying  out  his  plans,  if  that  were  our  whole  New  Testament  ? 
Doubtless  Marcion  was  moved  by  lofty  thoughts.  It  was 
certainly  nobler  to  condemn  the  bloodthirstiness  that  Israel 
attributed  to  its  God  than  to  condone  it.  But  his  influence, 
though  it  held  out  long,  did  at  last  fade  away.  It  seems  likely 
that  many  of  the  Christians  in  his  Churches,  partly  from  indiffer- 
ence or  from  ignorance  out  of  mere  accident,  came,  as  years 
passed  by,  to  use  other  books  of  the  general  New  Testament 
of  the  Church.  The  whole  Marcionitic  movement  has  its  great 
value  for  the  criticism  of  the  canon  in  its  testimony,  which 
is  undoubtable,  to  the  mass  of  the  New  Testament  books. 
Marcion's  books  were  a  selection  from  the  books  of  the  Church. 
In  the  second  place,  it  shows  with  the  clearness  of  daylight 
that  up  to  that  moment  no  canon  had  been  determined  upon 
by  the  general  Church.  And,  in  the  third  place,  it  shows  how 
tenaciously  the  Christians  clung  to  what  books  they  had,  when 
the  stormy  and  vigorously  generalled  Marcionitic  movement, 
with  its  arraignment  of  the  remaining  books,  succeeded  after  all 
in  making  no  lasting  impression  upon  the  general  contents  of 
the  New  Testament. 

If  any  title   for  a  book    destined   for   Christians   could  be 
appropriate,  it  is  that  of  the  Shepherd.     Jesus  called  Himself 


THE  POST-APOSTOLIC  AGE— HERMAS  83 

the  good  Shepherd.  A  brother  of  Pius,  the  bishop  of  Rome, 
wrote  it.  Pius  was  bishop  probably  about  from  141  to  157. 
A  threefold  tradition  says  that  his  brother  wrote  the  Shepherd 
while  Pius  was  in  the  chair.  It  contains  eight  visions,  twelve 
commands,  and  nine  parables  communicated  to  him  by  the 
Church  and  the  Shepherd.  The  tenth  parable  is  the  closing 
section  of  the  book,  and  contains  the  rules  given  to  Hermas 
how  to  order  his  life  from  henceforth.  It  will  be  at  once  clear 
that  a  dream-book  of  this  kind  cannot  be  expected  to  contain 
quantities  of  quotations  from  sheerly  practical  writings  like  the 
Gospels  and  the  Epistles  in  general.  I  suppose  that  people 
seldom  quote  in  dreams.  The  ecstatic  condition  makes  the 
writer  all  in  all,  without  books.  From  the  contents  of  the  whole 
composition  it  seems  plain  that  the  author  knew  at  least  one  of 
our  synoptic  Gospels ;  the  knowledge  of  all  three  is  not  to  be 
proved  from  the  text.  For  myself,  I  do  not  doubt  that  all  three 
Gospels,  all  four  Gospels,  were  well  known  at  Rome  before  that 
time.  This  author  had  no  mission  to  speak  of  them  in  detail. 
It  seems  certain  that  he  knew  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians. 
The  other  Pauline  Epistles  do  not  come  to  the  front.  Some 
things  remind  us  of  Hebrews,  but  we  need  not  press  the 
similarity.  The  Epistle  of  James  is  discernible  partly  in  its 
matter,  in  the  thoughts  and  things  mentioned  in  it,  and  partly 
in  the  words  used.  Of  course,  the  book  of  Revelation  fitted  best 
of  all  into  Hermas'  ideas. 

He  is  one  of  the  organisers  of  the  renewal  of  the  Old 
Testament,  and  of  the  law  in  the  Old  Catholic  Church  that 
is  beginning  to  knit  together.  But  it  is  not  the  more  open 
Jewish  manner  with  the  notion  that  the  Church  is  merely 
Judaism  perfected.  It  is  a  Christianity  that  takes  to  itself 
serried  legal  forms.  This  kind  of  Christianity  cannot  be 
called  Mosaic,  but  it  is  just  the  kind  of  Christianity  that  must 
commend  itself  to  a  mind  that  had  been  brought  up  under 
severely  Jewish  influences.  We  should  not,  however,  fail  to 
observe  where  we  stand.  If  I  do  not  err,  the  reason  for  the 
growth  of  this  kind  of  religion  then  and  there  is  to  be  sought, 
not  in  the  Old  Testament  and  not  in  Ebionitic  fancies  of  the 
movers,  but  in  the  spirit  of  the  people  in  which  the  new  religion 
had  now  been  present  for  nearly  a  century.  To  dispose  of 
Ebionism,  it  was  the  tendency  of  this  spirit  that  led  the  movers 


84  THE  CANON 

to  Ebionitic  thoughts,  not  Ebionitic  teaching  which  warped 
them  from  a  description  of  Christianity  that  lay  nearer  to  their 
hearts.  The  early  Christianity  at  Rome  was  by  the  time  of 
the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  of  a  heathen  Christian  cast.  It  could 
not  at  that  time  be  well  other  than  Greek.  It  remained  Greek 
in  language  even  beyond  the  time  with  which  we  are  now  dealing. 
But  as  years  passed  by  the  Roman  element  grew  stronger  and 
began  to  think  for  itself.  The  soul  of  Rome  was  law.  And 
that  law,  that  sense  of  law  and  for  law,  must  needs  be  impressed 
upon  the  form  that  Christianity  finally  assumed  in  the  eternal 
city.  The  growth  of  the  Old  Catholic  Church  is  not  merely  to 
be  charged  to  a  general  human  perversity,  and  its  leaning  towards 
the  Old  Testament  is  not  alone  a  token  of  a  new  life  in  Jewish- 
Christian  circles  in  the  second  century,  and  its  centring  and  vast 
strength  in  Rome  was  not  solely  the  consequence  of  the 
enormous  influence  of  the  capital  of  the  world.  The  crystallisa- 
tion of  this  Church  was  the  necessary  consequence  of  the  action 
of  the  spirit  of  the  Roman  people  upon  the  Christian  Church. 
For  those  Christians,  little  as  they  overcast  the  whole  sphere  to 
reach  such  a  conclusion,  the  new  form  of  Christianity  was  not 
one  of  the  retrograde  steps,  returning  to  the  used-up  bottles  of 
the  Old  Testament,  but  a  step  forward.  It  was  not  a  Judaising, 
but  a  Romanising  of  Christianity.  It  was  not  conceived  of  as  a 
limiting  of  Christianity,  much  as  it  would  block  heresy,  but  as 
a  development  and  opening  out  of  its  capabilities. 

At  the  close  of  the  second  vision  we  have  a  chance  to  see  how 
a  good  book  would  then  be  started  on  its  way  in  the  Church. 
The  elder  woman,  the  Church,  asks  Hermas  whether  he  has 
already  communicated  to  the  elders  a  book  that  he  had  borrowed 
from  her  to  copy  off.  When  he  replied  No,  she  says  that  it  is  all 
right,  she  wishes  to  add  something :  "  When,  then,  I  shall  finish 
all  these  words,  they  shall  be  made  known  by  thee  to  all  the  elect." 
The  process  was  to  begin  with  the  making  two  copies,  so  that 
three  books  should  be  available :  "  Thou  shalt  write,  then,  two 
little  books, — that  is  to  say,  two  copies, — and  thou  shalt  send  one 
to  Clement  and  one  to  Grapte.  Clement  will  then  send  out  to 
the  cities  outside,  for  that  is  charged  upon  him.  And  Grapte 
will  put  in  mind  the  widows  and  the  orphans.  You,  however, 
will  read  it  in  this  city  with  the  elders  who  stand  at  the  head 
of  the  Church."     Is  not  that  a  pretty  window  looking  in  upon 


THE  POST-APOSTOLIC   AGE— HERMAS  85 

the  literary  habit  in  Christian  Rome?  In  the  rest  of  the  visions 
the  Church  bids  him  again  and  again  to  "  tell "  the  saints  what 
she  says.  The  word  of  mouth  is  still  powerful.  But  in  the 
commandments  the  Shepherd  who  takes  charge  of  him  again 
enjoins  him  repeatedly  to  write.  Thoroughly  Pauline  is  (Vis.  3,  8) 
the  putting  Faith  at  the  head  of  the  seven  women  who  bear  the 
tower,  the  Church :  "  The  first  one  of  them,  the  one  clasping 
her  hands,  is  called  Faith.  By  this  one  the  elect  of  God  are 
saved.  The  next  one,  the  one  girt  up  and  holding  herself  firmly, 
is  called  Self-mastery.  This  is  the  daughter  of  Faith."  Later 
follow,  each  the  daughter  of  the  preceding :  Self-Mastery,  Sim- 
plicity, Purity,  Holiness,  Understanding  (or  Insight),  and  Love. 
"Of  these,  then,  the  works  are  pure  and  holy  and  divine."  In 
the  ninth  parable  (ch.  15)  the  Shepherd  calls  them  virgins,  and 
there  are  twelve  of  them  :  "  The  first  Faith,  and  the  second  Self- ' 
mastery,  and  the  third  Power,  and  the  fourth  Long-suffering, 
and  the  others  standing  in  the  midst  of  these  have  the  names : 
Simplicity,  Purity,  Chastity,  Cheerfulness,  Truth,  Insight,  Con- 
cord, Love.  The  one  who  bears  these  names  and  the  name  of 
the  son  of  God  will  be  able  to  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God." 
The  Christianity  that  this  beautiful  dream  depicts  is  from  the 
beginning  to  the  end  a  Christianity  that  lives  upon  our  New 
Testament  and  not  on  books  of  which  we  know  nothing. 

We  have  a  sermon,  a  homily,  written  soon  after  Hermas,  and 
at  Rome.  It  is  even  barely  possible  that  the  Clement  whom 
Hermas  above  mentions  wrote  it.  We  cannot  tell.  It  would 
have  been  in  that  case  all  the  more  easy  for  it  to  be  attributed, 
as  it  was  for  centuries,  to  the  same  Clement  as  the  one  who 
wrote  the  good  letter  from  the  Church  at  Rome  to  the  Church 
at  Corinth.  Curiously  enough  this  sermon  gives  several 
quotations  that  do  not  agree  with  our  Gospels.  Undoubtedly 
it  is  possible  in  one  or  two  passages  that  the  writer  merely  gives 
the  words  at  haphazard  from  memory,  as  has  been  done  even 
in  modern  sermons.  In  other  cases  the  author  probably  had  a 
Gospel  that  w^e  do  not  know  the  text  of,  perhaps  the  Gospel  of 
the  Egyptians.  He  used  Old  Testament  books.  That  we  do 
not  in  the  course  of  a  single  sermon  find  allusions  to  the  mass 
of  the  New  Testament,  is  nothing  strange.  He,  the  writer,  says 
(ch.  4),  where  he  is  speaking  of  the  Lord :  "  For  He  saith.  Not 
every  one  saying  to  Me  Lord,  Lord,  shall  be  saved  ;  but  he  that 


S6  THE  CANON 

doeth  righteousness."  That  may  be  from  an  unknown  Gospel, 
but  it  may  be  his  homiletical  way  of  using  Matthew's  account. 
The  following,  however,  gives  a  new  turn  (ch.  4) :  "  The  Lord  said, 
If  ye  were  gathered  together  with  Me  in  My  bosom  and  should 
not  do  My  commandments,  I  will  cast  you  out  and  say  to  you. 
Begone  from  Me,  I  know  not  whence  ye  are,  workers  of  law- 
lessness." If  it  be  not  a  confused  and  rewrought  shape  of  several 
Gospel  passages,  we  do  not  know  whence  it  comes.  It  is  good, 
plain  sermon  quotation  of  our  Gospels  when  he  says  (ch.  5) :  "  For 
the  Lord  saith.  Ye  shall  be  as  lambs  in  the  midst  of  wolves." 
If  anyone  could  have  called  his  attention  to  the  words  of  Jesus  : 
"  Behold,  I  send  you  as  lambs  in  the  midst  of  wolves,"  he  would 
at  once  have  replied :  "  That  is  just  what  I  said.  Ye  shall  be 
as  lambs  in  the  midst  of  wolves."  For  a  mind  of  that  kind  in 
a  sermon  a  general  approach  in  thoughts  and  words  is  more 
than  enough  to  justify  the  phrase:  The  Lord  saith.  In  another 
place  he  uses  words  which  we  find  in  a  like  form  in  Irenaeus 
and  in  Hilary.  They  are  in  a  measure  a  rounding  off  of  a 
passage  in  Luke,  and  they  may  have  stood  in  the  original 
book  of  Matthew  of  which  we  spoke  at  the  outset :  "  For  the 
Lord  saith  in  the  Gospel,  If  ye  keep  not  that  which  is  little, 
who  will  give  you  that  which  is  great?  For  I  say  unto  you 
that  the  one  faithful  in  the  least  is  faithful  also  in  much."  One 
of  the  phrases  used  by  this  sermon-writer  confirms  for  us  his 
careless  way  of  writing,  yet  it  throws  light  upon  the  position 
which  the  New  Testament  books  were  then  beginning  to  take 
as  of  a  similar  value  to  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament,  and 
it  at  the  same  time  uses  them  as  of  authority :  "  I  account  you 
not  ignorant  that  the  living  Church  is  Christ's  body  .  .  .  and 
that  the  books  and  the  apostles  [say]  the  Church  is  not  from 
now  but  from  before."  The  books  are  the  Old  Testament,  it 
is  the  Bible ;  and  the  apostles  are  here  the  New  Testament. 
There  is  not  the  least  reason  to  suppose  that  this  preacher  used 
any  other  New  Testament  than  ours,  in  spite  of  his  quotations 
from  a  strange  Gospel  or  so.  We  know  that  a  few  such  books 
were  in  existence,  and  that  they  were  occasionally  used.  Nothing 
indicates  that  the  strange  Gospel  was  to  supplant  one  of  the 
four  Gospels. 

A  few  lines,  in  two  chapters,  make  up  the  second  part  of 
what  is  called  above  the  Letter  to  Diognetus.     Nothing  betrays 


THE  POST-APOSTOLIC  AGE— JUSTIN    MARTYR  8; 

to  US  the  origin  or  purpose  of  these  few  lines  distinctly,  if  the 
close  may  not  be  supposed  to  be  the  close  of  a  sermon.  The 
style  is  florid  but  lofty.  The  author  describes  clearly  for  us 
(ch.  ii)  in  one  well  turned  sentence  his  Bible  and  its  union  with 
the  Church :  "  Then  the  fear  of  the  law  is  sounded  abroad,  and 
the  grace  of  the  prophets  is  made  known,  and  the  faith  of  the 
Gospels  is  grounded,  and  the  tradition  of  the  apostles  is  guarded, 
and  the  grace  of  the  Church  leaps  for  joy."  There  we  have 
the  law,  the  prophets,  the  Gospels,  and  the  apostles.  The  word 
tradition  used  for  the  apostles  no  more  points  away  from  the 
books  to  the  living  tradition  by  word  of  mouth  than  the  grace 
of  the  prophets  applies  to  something  not  in  the  Old  Testament. 
The  author  refers  (ch.  12)  to  First  Corinthians:  "Knowledge 
puffeth  up,  but  love  buildeth  up."  The  Word  appears  every- 
where in  this  fragment,  and  the  writer  must  have  known  John. 

It  appeared  from  what  we  said  above  that  the  great  spirit, 
even  if  the  somewhat  unmanageable  one,  between  Paul  and 
Origen  was  Marcion.  He  passed  through  the  Church  and  the 
Churches  like  a  storm,  tearing  much  down  here  and  there, 
building  some  things  up,  and  certainly  inspiring  many  souls  with 
loftier  thoughts  of  God  and  with  more  intense  devotion  to 
purity  of  personal  life  than  they  had  cherished  before.  Justin 
the  Martyr  was  of  a  totally  different  character.  His  name  fills, 
nevertheless,  a  very  large  place  in  the  annals  of  the  early  Church, 
in  the  chronicles  of  the  second  Christian  century.  He  was  born 
probably  about  the  year  100,  near  Jacob's  Well,  for  the  Greek 
family  from  which  he  sprang  lived  at  Nabulus,  Flavia  Neapolis, 
old  Sychar,  Sichem.  The  Greek  Samaritan  was  of  cooler  metal 
than  the  Paphlagonian,  and  instead  of  starting  out  with  a  certain 
thesis  that  alone  was  truth,  he  set  out  to  seek  the  truth  among 
the  philosophers  of  his  day,  and  he  closed  his  eventful  life  at 
Rome  as  a  martyr  probably  in  the  year  165. 

The  order  and  success  of  his  quest  is  very  interesting.  He 
tells  Trypho  the  Jew  about  it  in  his  dialogue  with  him  (ch.  2). 
"  I  at  first  .  .  .  handed  myself  over  to  a  Stoic.  And  I  having 
spent  enough  time  with  him,  since  nothing  more  was  imparted  to 
me  about  God  (for  he  neither  knew  himself,  nor  did  he  say  that 
this  was  a  necessary  object  of  study),  I  changed  from  him  and  came 
to  another  called  a  Peripatetic,  in  his  own  opinion  a  keen  man. 
And  this  one,  after  enduring  me  the  first  few  days,  wished  me 


88  THE  CANON 

then  to  name  his  fee,  so  that  the  intercourse  should  not  be  with- 
out benefit  for  us.  And  him  I  left  for  that  reason,  not  thinking 
him  to  be  in  the  least  a  philosopher.  My  soul  was,  however,  still 
all  aglow  to  hear  the  genuine  and  lofty  side  of  philosophy,  and  I 
went  to  a  very  celebrated  Pythagorean,  a  man  who  laid  great 
store  in  philosophy.  And  then  as  I  conversed  with  him,  wishing 
to  become  a  hearer  and  close  pupil  of  his  :  What  then  ?  Art  thou 
at  home  in  Music  and  Astronomy  and  Geometry  ?  Or  dost  thou 
think  that  thou  canst  perceive  any  of  the  things  that  conduce  to 
happiness,  if  thou  hast  not  first  learned  these  things  which  draw 
the  soul  from  the  things  of  sense  and  prepare  it  to  use  the  things 
of  the  mind  ? "  Justin  was  rather  discomfited  when  the  Pytha- 
gorean sent  him  away.  But  he  thought  of  the  Platonists,  and 
went  to  them.  They  pleased  him.  The  theory  of  the  ideas 
gave  wings  to  his  thoughts,  and  he  soon  became  so  puffed  up 
that  he  thought  he  might  hope  soon  to  see  God.  Wishing  to 
consider  some  things  quietly  he  went  out  towards  the  sea 
(perhaps  from  Ephesus).  There  a  very  old  and  mild  and  holy 
man  met  him  and  asked  him  about  philosophy  only  at  last  to 
tell  him  of  Christ.  Remember  what  was  said  above  about  Chris- 
tianity as  a  life.  Justin  relates  (ch.  8) :  "I  took  fire  at  once  in 
my  soul,  and  a  love  seized  me  for  the  prophets  and  for  those 
men  who  are  Christ's  friends.  And  considering  with  myself  his 
words,  I  found  that  this  was  the  only  safe  and  useful  philosophy. 
Thus  and  therefore  am  I  a  philosopher."  Carping  souls  have 
sometimes  suggested  that  Justin  remained  to  the  end  more  a 
philosopher  than  a  Christian.  His  story  of  this  first  acquaintance 
with  Christianity  is  not  marked  by  a  lack  of  warmth.  Must 
every  Christian  be  as  hotheaded  as  Marcion  ?  And  Justin  went 
about  in  his  philosopher's  robe  persuading  men  with  tongue  and 
pen  that  Jesus  was  better  than  all  the  philosophers. 

Were  we  not  sure  that  our  four  Gospels  were  by  this  time  as  a 
simple  matter  of  ecclesiastical  and  literary  necessity  long  domiciled 
at  Rome,  long  known  on  all  the  main  roads  and  in  all  the  chief 
towns  of  Christian  frequence,  Justin  would  be  the  one  to  assure 
us  of  it.  The  examination  of  his  testimony  will  be  in  more  than 
one  way  instructive.  The  great  question  in  respect  to  any  author 
who  quotes  texts  is,  how  he  quotes.  We  wish  to  know  whether 
he  gets  down  a  roll  every  time  he  wishes  to  refer  to  a  sentence, 
or  whether  he  writes  down  the  general  sense  and  the  words  as 


THE  POST-APOSTOLIC  AGE— JUSTIN   MARTYR  89 

they  occur  to  him  in  dashing  them  off  with  a  quick  pen.  There 
are  so  many  quotations  in  Justin  that  we  are  not  at  a  loss  for 
material  to  examine.  Now  these  quotations  are  to  a  large 
extent  from  the  Old  Testament.  There  we  are  on  neutral 
ground.  There  no  one  can  think  that  we  are  trying  to  save  the 
appearances  of  a  canonical  Gospel  or  to  avoid  the  words  of  an 
uncanonical  one.  The  first  remark  to  be  made  is  the  curious 
one  that  Justin  in  various  quotations  from  the  Septuaginta 
translation  of  the  Old  Testament  agrees  strikingly  with  Paul  in 
words  which  do  not  coincide  with  those  in  the  common  text. 
Now  this  is  not  to  be  explained  by  the  theory  that  Paul  and 
Justin  both  happened  to  make  precisely  the  same  deviations  in 
trying  to  give  the  same  verses.  The  reason  seems  clearly  to  be 
this,  that  Justin  knew  the  Epistles  of  Paul  so  well  that  all  the 
passages  from  the  Old  Testament  in  them  took  for  him  the  form 
that  Paul  had  clothed  them  with.  Justin  says  to  Trypho  the  Jew 
(ch.  39) :  "  It  is  nothing  marvellous,  I  continued,  if  you  hate  us 
who  know  these  things,  and  denounce  your  ever  hard-hearted  mind. 
For  EHas,  too,  begging  for  you  to  God,  says  :  Lord,  Thy  pro- 
phets have  they  slain,  and  Thy  altars  have  they  torn  down ;  and 
I  alone  am  left,  and  they  seek  my  life.  And  He  answers  him,  I 
still  have  seven  thousand  men  who  have  not  bent  their  knee  to 
Baal."  In  the  main  point  that  is  Paul's  way  of  quoting  this 
passage  in  Romans.  And,  the  one  difference  of  a  few  words  is 
probably  due  to  a  slip  in  Justin's  memory. 

Another  check  is  to  be  found  in  the  passages  that  Justin 
quotes  more  than  once,  for  we  find  in  a  large  number  of 
cases  that  he  does  not  give  precisely  the  same  words  each 
time.  It  is  not  singular,  after  we  are  thus  sure  that  he  is 
quoting  out  of  his  head,  that  we  find  him  naming  the  wrong 
author  for  a  passage,  Jeremiah  for  Isaiah,  or  Hosea  for  Zech- 
ariah.  If  he  names  the  passage  more  than  once,  he  may  have 
the  name  right  in  one  place  and  wrong  in  another.  Some- 
times he  combines  various  passages  that  fit  together  into  the 
thought  and  expression.  Sometimes  he  warps  the  words  to  suit 
his  point.  And  ever  and  ever  again,  by  the  sovereign  right  of  a 
writer  to  give  the  sense  without  regard  to  words,  he  quotes  the 
Greek  Old  Testament  in  such  a  way  that  if  it  were  the  text  of 
the  Gospels  many  an  investigator  would  be  inclined  to  call  it  a 
quotation  from  an  unknown  Gospel.     If  that  be  the  way  in  which 


go  THE  CANON 

Justin  cites,  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament,  we  may  in 
advance  feel  sure  that  he  will  not  act  in  the  least  differently  when 
he  refers  to  the  words  of  the  New  Testament.  Strange  that  we 
so  often  berate  men  for  cleaving  to  the  letter  in  their  words,  and 
that  we  in  this  case  because  of  a  modern  view  of  the  holiness 
and  intangibility  of  the  words  of  the  Bible,  a  view  based  partly 
on  the  post-Christian  Jewish  Masoretic  habits,  are  so  much  dis- 
contented with  these  ancient  worthies  who  strike  at  the  heart  of 
the  matter  and  think  nothing  of  the  form.  Do  we,  w^hen  we  feel 
stirred  against  the  writers  and  preachers  who  quote  carelessly, — 
do  we  ever  reflect  upon  the  fact  that  we  are  not  able  to  say 
what  book  of  the  Wisdom  of  God  Jesus  refers  to  towards  the 
end  of  the  eleventh  chapter  of  Luke  ?  "  On  this  account  also 
the  Wisdom  of  God  said,  I  will  send  to  them  prophets  and 
apostles,  and  some  of  them  they  will  slay  and  will  persecute,  in 
order  that  the  blood  of  all  the  prophets  that  was  shed  from  the 
founding  of  the  world  should  be  demanded  of  this  generation, 
from  the  blood  of  Abel  till  the  blood  of  Zacharias,  who  was  slain 
between  the  altar  and  the  house."  If  Jesus  could  quote  God's 
Wisdom  so  that  we  cannot  verify  His  words,  much  more  may  late 
writers  like  Justin  allow  themselves  a  certain  freedom  in  the  use 
of  Gospel  texts. 

Before  we  enter  upon  the  examination  of  his  use  of  the 
words  of  Jesus,  we  must  refer  to  the  name  that  he  employs 
for  the  books  from  which  he  draws  these  words.  He  does 
not  usually  call  them  Gospels.  We  must  bear  in  mind  that 
the  title  Gospel  was  not  at  first  attached  to  each  of  the  books. 
In  Justin's  three  genuine  works  which  have  been  preserved,  the 
two  (one)  Apologies  and  the  Dialogue  with  Trypho,  we  find 
references  to  the  Gospel  in  the  singular,  Trypho  speaks  thus,  and 
to  the  Memoirs  or  Memorabilia  which  are  Apomnemoneumata 
precisely  like  Xenophon's  Memorabilia.  Eight  times  he  calls 
these  memoirs :  "  Memoirs  by  the  Apostles."  Four  times  he 
calls  them  only  :  "  Memoirs."  Once  he  calls  them :  "  Memoirs 
composed  by  the  Apostles  of  Christ  and  by  those  who  followed 
with  them."  In  this  latter  case  he  quotes  Luke.  And  once, 
in  quoting  Mark  on  the  name  Jesus  gave  Peter  and  on  the 
name  Boanerges  for  James  and  John,  he  calls  them :  "  Peter's 
Memoirs,"  doubtless  in  allusion  to  the  account  in  Papias  that 
Mark  wrote  down  Peter's  words.     The  writers  of  the  Gospels, 


THE  POST-APOSTOLIC  AGE— JUSTIN   MARTYR  9 1 

that  is  to  say,  of  these  Memoirs,  Justin  calls  Apostles  in  one 
place,  for  he  says  :  "  the  Apostles  wrote,"  and  adds  a  point  given 
in  all  four  Gospels.  He  refers  to  these  writers  (Apol.  ^^)  as : 
"  those  who  have  written  memoirs  of  all  things  concerning  our 
Saviour  Jesus  Christ  whom  we  believe." 

Justin  also  tells  us  something  else  about  these  books, 
something  that  is  very  important  and  that  will  take  our  thoughts 
back  to  the  usages  and  habits  in  the  divine  services  in  the 
early  Christian  Church.  It  is  well  on  in  his  Apology  for  the 
Christians  to  the  heathen  emperor  (ch.  67),  and  he  describes 
the  weekly  worship  of  the  Christians :  "  On  the  day  called  the 
day  of  the  Sun  a  gathering  takes  place  of  all  who  live  in  the 
towns  or  in  the  country  in  one  place,  and  the  memoirs  of 
the  apostles  or  the  writings  of  the  prophets  are  read,  so  long  as 
the  time  permits.  Then  the  reader  stops  and  the  leader 
impresses  by  word  of  mouth,  and  urges  to  imitation  of,  these 
good  things.  Then  we  all  stand  up  together  and  send  forth 
prayers."  Here  it  is  plain  that  in  the  circles  that  Justin  was 
acquainted  with,  these  Memoirs,  whatever  they  were,  were  not 
regarded  as  being  upon  a  very  different  plane  from  the  Scriptures 
of  the  Old  Testament.  It  is  true  that  he  does  not  speak  with 
great  exactness.  It  would  be  possible  for  him  to  say  what  he 
says,  even  if  the  Memoirs  were  still  regarded  as  human  books, 
were  only  read  in  the  public  services  under  the  heading  of:  Man 
to  Men.  Nevertheless,  after  making  every  allowance,  it  must 
be  granted  that  when  he  names  the  Memoirs  before  the  Old 
Testament  Scriptures,  he  really  places  them  not  merely  on  a 
level  with  them,  but  above  them.  Of  course,  the  writings  of  the 
prophets  must  here  include  the  Law.  He  is  only  giving  a  general 
description. 

The  fact  that  Justin  causes  Trypho  to  speak  of  the  Gospel 
in  the  singular  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  use  of  one  Gospel 
book  instead  of  the  four  Gospels.  Even  to-day,  a  writer  or 
orator  does  not  hesitate  to  speak  of  what  we  find  in  the  Gospel, 
meaning  merely  in  the  Gospel  story  of  Jesus,  and  totally  irrespec- 
tive of  the  point  whether  the  matter  in  question  happens  to  stand 
in  only  one  of  the  four  Gospels  or  in  two  or  in  all  four.  And 
whatever  may  happen  to-day,  we  have  many  a  writer  of  the  time 
following  that  of  Justin  who  says  Gospel  in  the  singular ;  for 
example,  Theophilus  of  Antioch,  Iren^us,  Clement  of  Alexandria, 


92  THE  CANON 

Origen,  Hippolytus,  and  Tertullian.  Thus  far,  then,  we  have 
found  that  Justin  speaks  of  the  Gospel,  of  the  Gospels,  but 
especially  of  the  "  Memoirs  of  his  Apostles,"  a  form  used  five 
times, — a  form  in  which  "  his  "  can  refer  to  no  one  but  Jesus. 
Let  us  count  it  up  :  Justin,  who  as  a  Christian  philosopher  has 
passed  through  many  lands,  knows  books  telling  of  Jesus,  written 
by  His  apostles  and  by  those  who  followed  with  them,  called 
Gospels.  He  calls  them  Memoirs.  Has  the  name  Memoirs  any 
particular  value  for  Justin  or  for  anyone  else  ?  Scarcely.  It  was 
probably  a  mere  philological  fancy  of  Justin's  that  was  born  with 
him  and  died  with  him.  It  undoubtedly  fitted  well  into  his 
discussions  with  men  of  classical  training  to  be  able  to  use  thus 
Xenophon's  word  as  an  introduction  for  the  written  story  of 
Jesus.  Otherwise  the  word  was  not  of  the  least  importance. 
We  may  therefore  let  the  word  Memoirs  pass  and  take  up  the 
word  Gospels,  for  Justin  says  they  are  also  called  Gospels. 

Does  anything  go  to  show  that  Justin  had  among  the  number 
of  these  Gospels  a  Gospel  that  we  do  not  possess  among  our 
four  Gospels?  He  speaks  of  Christ  as  born  in  a  cave,  of  the 
Wise  Men  as  from  Arabia,  and  of  Christ's  making  ploughs  and 
yokes  as  a  carpenter,  all  of  which  is  not  in  our  Gospels.  But 
then  that  is  not  in  other  serious  Gospels,  and  it  is  nothing  to  us 
whether  Justin  got  it  from  verbal  tradition  or  from  some  current 
apocryphal  Gospel.  We  certainly  have  no  ground  to  expect 
in  advance  that  he  would  name  for  our  special  benefit  every 
New  Testament  book  that  he  knew  of.  He  does  mention  one 
book  besides  the  Gospels,  and  that  is  the  Revelation.  It  is  in  the 
Dialogue  with  Trypho  (ch.  8i) :  "  And  then,  too,  a  certain  man 
of  our  number,  his  name  was  John,  one  of  the  apostles  of  the 
Christ,  prophesied  in  a  revelation  made  to  him  that  those  who 
believed  in  our  Christ  would  spend  a  thousand  years  in  Jeru- 
salem, and  that  after  this  the  general  and,  in  a  word,  the  eternal 
resurrection  of  all  like  one  man  would  take  place,  and  the 
judgment."  That  is  the  only  other  book  of  the  New  Testament 
that  he  names. 

When  we  examine  the  words  that  he  quotes  from  the  Memoirs 
and  ask  ourselves  whether  or  not  they  could  be,  could  have  been 
drawn  from  our  four  Gospels,  we  must  at  once  recall  what  we 
learned  from  the  examination  of  his  quotations  from  the  Old 
Testament.     It  is  not  the  habit  of  Justin  to  take  down  a  roll  and 


THE  POST-APOSTOLIC  AGE— JUSTIN    MARTYR  93 

copy  off  a  sentence  carefully  when  he  wishes  to  quote  it.  He 
reproduces  a  passage  from  the  Old  Testament  just  as  it  comes 
into  his  thoughts,  and  we  may  be  sure  that  he  will  do  exactly  the 
same  with  the  New  Testament.  Ezra  Abbot  examined  this 
matter  and  placed  the  results,  as  follows,  far  beyond  the  reach 
of  doubt.  In  the  sixty-first  chapter  of  the  Apology  Justin  describes 
baptism  :  "  Those  who  are  persuaded  and  believe  that  these  things 
which  we  teach  and  say  are  true,  and  promise  to  be  able  to  live 
thus,  are  taught  to  pray  fasting  and  beseech  God  for  the  remission 
of  the  former  sins,  we  praying  and  fasting  with  them.  Then  they 
are  led  by  us  to  a  place  where  there  is  water,  and  in  the  manner 
of  new  birth,  in  which  we  ourselves  also  were  new  born,  they  are 
born  again.  For  in  the  name  of  the  Father  of  all  things  and 
Master  God  and  of  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ  and  of  Holy  Spirit 
they  then  undergo  the  washing  in  the  water.  For  the  Christ  also 
said :  If  ye  be  not  born  again,  ye  shall  in  no  wise  enter  into 
the  kingdom  of  the  heavens.  But  that  it  is  impossible  for 
those  who  have  once  been  born  to  enter  into  the  wombs  of 
those  who  bore  them  is  clear  to  all."  Now  in  the  third 
chapter  of  John  we  read  :  "  Jesus  answered  and  said  to  him — 
that  is,  to  Nicodemus —  :  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  thee.  Except 
a  man  be  born  anew,  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God. 
Nicodemus  saith  to  Him  :  How  can  a  man  be  born  when  he 
is  old  ?  Can  he  enter  a  second  time  into  his  mother's  womb, 
and  be  born  ?  Jesus  answered,  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  thee. 
Except  a  man  be  born  of  water  and  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter 
into  the  kingdom  of  God."  For  a  man  who  did  not  already 
know  how  Justin  quotes,  the  difference  between  the  words  in 
Justin  and  those  in  John  might  in  truth  seem  to  exclude  the 
suggestion  that  Justin  was  really  quoting  from  John.  Careful 
investigation  shows,  however,  in  the  first  place,  that  pretty  much 
all  the  omissions  made  here  and  there  by  Justin  have  also  been 
made  by  well-known  Church  writers  of  a  later  date,  and  who 
certainly  quoted  John.  As  for  the  changes  in  words,  so  that  the 
sense  rather  than  the  form  of  John  is  reproduced,  these  changes 
are  to  be  matched  in  similar  later  writers,  some  of  them  ten  times, 
some  of  them  twenty  times,  some  of  them  sixty  times. 

The  last  touch  of  proof  for  the  thorough  nothingness  of  the 
claim  that  Justin  was  here  using  some  unknown  apocryphal 
Gospel,  is  given  by  a  comparison  of  the  use  of  this  text  in  the 


94  THE  CANON 

writings  of  the  famous  English  clergyman  Jeremy  Taylor,  who 
died  in  1667.  He  quoted  this  passage  at  least  nine  times.  It 
scarcely  need  be  said  that  he  got  it  from  the  English  version  of  the 
Gospel  of  John  and  not  from  an  unknown  Gospel.  Now  Jeremy 
Taylor  writes  every  time  "  Unless  "  instead  of  "  Except  "  ;  that 
is  so  uniform,  it  must,  of  course,  be  another  Gospel.  He  writes 
six  times  "  kingdom  of  heaven  "  for  "  kingdom  of  God  "  ;  that  is 
a  great  difference ;  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  like  Matthew.  Once 
he  says  merely  "  heaven  "  instead  of  "  kingdom  of  God."  He 
writes  four  times  "shall  not  enter"  instead  of  "cannot  enter." 
He  writes  the  second  person  plural  "ye"  twice  instead  of  the 
third  person  singular.  He  writes  once  "  baptized  with  water " 
instead  of  "born  of  water."  He  writes  once  "born  again  of 
water  "  instead  of  "  born  of  water."  He  writes  once  "  both  of 
water  and  the  Spirit"  instead  of  "of  water  and  of  the  Spirit." 
He  omits  "  of"  before  Spirit  six  times.  He  adds  "  holy  "  before 
Spirit  twice.  We  see  that  in  spite  of  the  ease  with  which  an 
English  clergyman  in  the  seventeenth  century  could  refer  to  the 
text  of  a  Gospel  passage,  he  did  not  do  it.  What  wonder  that 
Justin  did  not  do  it  in  the  second  century,  when  he  would  have 
had  to  unroll  a  roll  and  look  around  for  the  words.  Even  the 
Book  of  Common  Prayer  quotes  this  passage  twice  alike,  and 
wrong.  That  one  passage  shows  of  itself  that  Justin  used  the 
Fourth  Gospel.     He  probably  used  all  four  Gospels. 

The  thought  that  Justin  did  not  know  our  Gospels,  but  used 
apocryphal  ones,  finds  a  very  good  blocking-off  in  a  single 
passage.  In  speaking  of  Jesus'  baptism  (Dial.  103),  Justin  gives 
as  addressed  to  Him  the  heavenly  words :  "  Thou  art  My  Son. 
This  day  have  I  begotten  Thee."  These  words  are  in  some 
of  our  witnesses  to-day  for  the  passage  in  Luke.  Now  Justin 
does  not  attribute  these  words  to  the  Memoirs,  but  adds  after 
these  words  that  in  the  Memoirs  of  the  Apostles  the  devil  is 
then  described  as  having  come  to  Him  and  tempted  Him. 
He  appears  to  distinguish  between  the  Memoirs  and  the  source 
of  that  addition.  It  was  seen  above  that  Justin  said  that  the 
Memoirs  were  from  the  apostles  and  from  those  who  followed 
them.  That  looks  as  if  Justin  had  in  view  Matthew  and  John 
as  apostles,  and  Mark  and  Luke  as  followers  of  apostles.  A 
passage  in  the  Dialogue  (ch.  88)  appears  to  confirm  this  thought 
by  referring  to  something   given  alone  by  Matthew  and  John, 


THE   POST-APOSTOLIC   AGE— JUSTIN    MARTYR  95 

as  written  by  the  apostles ;  it  is  the  only  passage  in  which 
Justin  says  the  apostles  have  written:  **And  then  when  Jesus 
came  to  the  river  Jordan,  where  John  was  baptizing,  as  Jesus 
went  down  into  the  water  also  fire  was  kindled  in  the  Jordan ; 
and  when  He  came  up  from  the  water,  like  a  dove  the  Holy 
Si)irit  flew  upon  Him,  wrote  the  apostles  of  this  our  Christ." 
It  is  that  last  part  for  which  Justin  appeals  to  the  apostles 
as  if  meaning  that  that  was  told  by  Matthew  and  John,  in  whose 
Gospels  it  is. 

In  telling  Trypho  of  the  vast  love  of  God  and  His  readiness 
to  take  men  who  are  willing  to  come  to  Him,  Justin  gives  us  a 
word,  a  saying  of  Jesus  that  is  not  in  our  Gospels.  It  may  have 
passed  from  the  tradition  by  word  of  mouth  to  the  Gospel  of 
the  Hebrews.  After  quoting  Ezekiel,  Justin  continues  (eh.  47) : 
"  For  this  reason  also  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  said  :  In  whatsoever 
things  I  shall  light  upon  you,  in  these  also  I  shall  judge  you." 
We  might  instead  of  "  light  upon "  say  directly  "  catch "  you. 
In  another  passage  in  the  Dialogue  (ch.  35),  Justin  quotes  two 
passages  from  Matthew,  and  in  between  them  the  words  :  "  And 
there  shall  be  schisms  and  heresies."  This  occurs  in  another 
form  in  the  Clementines.  It  may  be  a  word  of  Jesus.  But  it 
may  also  be  a  vague  deduction  from  some  words  of  Paul  that 
came  to  be  attributed  to  Jesus.  That  is  all  that  Justin  gives  us 
from  possible  other  Gospels.     It  is  not  much. 

What  Justin  says  about  Jesus  is  then  almost  without  ex- 
ception precisely  what  our  Gospels  gave  him,  and  we  may  be 
positively  sure  that  he  got  it  out  of  no  other  Gospels.  He 
exaggerated  it  may  be,  as  when  he  writes  that  Herod  killed 
all  the  male  children  in  Bethlehem;  but  that  might  befall 
a  writer  at  any  date  who  liked  strong  statements.  In  like 
manner  he  declares  that  the  first  Jewish  calumniators  of  the 
Christians  at  the  resurrection  sent  picked  men  out  into  the  whole 
world  denouncing  the  theft  of  the  body  of  Jesus  and  the  false 
story  of  the  resurrection  and  ascension.  That  was  a  very  easy 
stretching  of  the  story  in  Matthew.  A  story-teller  would  regard 
it  as  altogether  legitimate.  In  some  passages  we  may  hesitate 
whether  to  suppose  that  he  himself  was  the  author  of  a  certain 
addition  to  or  an  exegesis  of  Gospel  words,  or  whether  to  assume 
that  he  had  heard  them  from  others  as  he  travelled  about. 
Some  of  them  may  have   been  rabbinic  Jewish  interpretations 


96  THE  CANON 

which  had  passed  over  into  Jewish  Christian  and  Christian 
circles.  For  example,  it  makes  us  think  of  the  writer  of  our 
Gospel  of  Matthew  when  we  read  that  Justin  first  quotes  Moses 
(Apol.  54) :  "  A  ruler  shall  not  fail  from  Judah.  .  .  .  And  he  shall 
be  the  longing  of  the  Gentiles,  binding  to  the  vine  his  foal," 
and,  as  he  recounts  the  fulfilment  of  all  the  details  of  the 
prophecy,  assures  us  :  "  For  a  certain  foal  of  an  ass  stood  in  a 
byway  of  the  village  bound  to  a  vine."  He  may  just  as  well  here 
be  following  Jewish  commentators  on  Messianic  passages.  Th^i 
writer  of  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  would  scarcely  have  failed  to 
add  that  vine,  if  he  had  thought  of  it,  and  have  declared  :  "  That 
took  place  in  order  that  the  words  might  be  fulfilled." 

Justin's  books  are  full  of  scripture,  full  of  gospel  matter.  The 
gospel  matter  is  from  our  four  Gospels  precisely  as  we  must  look 
for  it  to  be.  Justin  is  a  witness  for  widely  separated  countries 
and  Churches,  from  Palestine  to  Rome.  The  philosopher  has 
been  of  no  less  value  to  us  than  the  Paphlagonian  spiritual  giant 
and  stormy  reformer.  Justin  quotes  from  memory.  He  some- 
times quotes  much  at  random.  He  adds  to  one  book  words 
from  another.  He  combines  two  or  three  passages  into  one 
unwittingly.  But  in  all  he  shows  that  the  gospel  history  for  him 
is  precisely  the  history  that  we  have  in  our  four  Gospels ;  he  has 
nothing  to  add  to  it  and  nothing  to  take  away  from  it.  This  cir- 
cumstance is  the  more  noteworthy  because  we  know  that  he  was 
so  widely  travelled  and  so  well  informed.  He  cannot  but  have 
known  of  some  of  the  Gospels  that  are  sometimes  named,  the 
Gospel  of  the  Hebrews  and  the  Gospel  of  the  Egyptians,  for 
example.  But,  if  he  knows  of  them,  he  does  not  bother  about 
them.  He  does  not  search  out  for  peculiar  statements  about 
Jesus  and  the  words  of  Jesus  in  them  in  order  to  lay  them  before 
us  as  curiosities.  And  now  it  is  worth  while  to  observe  that 
Justin's  writings  were  probably  written  before  the  year  165,  his 
Apology  before  the  year  154.  The  best  opinion  thus  far  is  that 
he  died  about  the  year  165.  Supposing  that  the  original  ante- 
evangelical  book  that  we  conjecture  to  have  been  written  by 
Matthew  was  written  about  the  year  67,  there  would  have 
elapsed  from  it  to  the  year  154  only  ninety  years.  If  we  regard 
it  as  likely  that  Justin  became  a  Christian  by  the  year  133,  that 
would  have  been  little  more  than  sixty  years,  and  within  those 
sixty  years  we  should  have  to  place  the  writing  and  the  earliest 


THE  POST-APOSTOLIC  AGE— PAPIAS  97 

using  of  our  four  Gospels.  That  is  no  large  margin  of  time  for 
the  preparation  of  and  the  spreading  abroad  of  a  number  of 
unknown  books  which  should  have  filled  the  places  later  held 
by  our  Gospels.  Justin  had  every  chance  to  know  all  that  was 
before  the  eyes  of  Christians  in  the  Roman  Empire  shortly  before 
and  ten  years  after  the  year  150,  and  he  betrays  no  knowledge 
of  books  highly  valued  by  them  and  neither  to-day  in  our  New 
Testament  nor  known  to  us. 

Just  after  referring  to  the  letters  of  Ignatius,  w^e  had  occasion 
to  speak  of  certain  words  that  Papias  had  related  as  from  a 
presbyter  John.  It  is  now  time  to  speak  of  Papias  himself.  He 
must  have  been  born  long  before  the  year  ico,  for  he  was 
apparently  an  older  contemporary  of  Polycarp,  and  we  may 
suppose  that  he  was  born  about  the  year  80. 

He  may  have  been  a  heathen  by  birth.  His  name  rather 
points  to  that.  And  the  name  fits  well  for  a  boy  born  at 
Hierapolis.  Eusebius  speaks  slightingly  of  his  mental  calibre, 
but  we  do  not  need  to  think  less  of  him  on  that  account. 
Eusebius  was  one  of  the  cool  scientific  people  who  looked  back 
to  the  great  Alexandrian  and  Syrian  schools  with  pride.  He  had 
little  patience  with  the  fancies  of  the  millenarians  in  Asia  Minor. 
Eusebius  writes,  then  (H.  E.  3. 39),  of  Papias  in  the  following  strain, 
after  he  has  given  various  things  out  of  Papias  :  ''  And  the  same 
[writer]  adds  further  other  matter  as  if  it  had  reached  him  from 
an  unwritten  tradition,  both  some  strange  parables  of  the  Saviour 
and  strange  teachings  of  his,  and  some  other  things  rather  of  a 
mythical  kind.  Among  which  he  also  says  that  the  kingdom  of 
Christ  will  exist  bodily  upon  this  very  earth  a  thousand  years 
after  the  resurrection  from  the  dead.  Which  I  think  he  assumed 
through  misconception  of  the  apostolical  explanations,  not  hav- 
ing himself  seen  what  was  told  to  them  mystically  in  certam 
signs.  For  he  appears  to  have  been  exceedingly  small  in  mind, 
as  can  be  put  forth  so  to  speak  from  his  own  words.  Besides,  he 
has  been  the  chief  cause  (Eusebius  would  say :  of  the  absurd 
opinions)  also  for  the  most  of  those  churchly  men  after  him  of  a 
like  opinion  with  himself,  they  hiding  themselves  behind  the 
great  antiquity  of  the  man,  as,  for  example,  Irenaeus,  and  if  there 
is  any  other  that  has  come  to  light  thinking  the  like  things. 
And  he  hands  down  also  in  his  book  other  discussions  of  the  word 
of  the  Lord  by  Aristion,  the  one  above  alluded  to,  and  traditions 
7 


98  THE  CANON 

of  the  presbyter  John,  to  which  remanding  those  eager  to  learn, 
we  shall  here  of  necessity  add  to  the  former  words  presented 
[from  his  book]  a  tradition  which,  alluding  to  Mark  who  wrote  the 
Gospel,  is  put  forth  in  these  words.  And  this  the  presbyter  said  : 
Mark  the  interpreter  of  Peter  wrote  accurately  as  many  things 
as  he  [Peter]  related,  yet  not  in  order,  of  the  things  said  or  done 
by  the  Christ.  For  he  neither  heard  the  Lord  nor  followed  with 
Him,  but  afterwards  as  I  said  with  Peter,  who  gave  teachings 
according  as  they  were  necessary,  but  not  as  setting  forth  a 
connected  system  of  the  Lord's  words.  So  that  Mark  made  no 
mistake,  writing  down  some  things  thus  as  he  remembered  them. 
For  he  gave  attention  to  one  thing,  not  to  leave  out  anything 
that  he  heard  or  to  say  anything  false  among  what  [he  gave]." 

Papias'  whole  neighbourhood  was  millenarian,  and  he  could 
not  suspect  that  a  Church  historian  two  hundred  years  later  would 
throw  that  up  to  him.  For  our  purpose  Papias'  five  books,  the 
Explanations  of  the  Lord's  Sayings,  would,  we  think,  be  invaluable. 
They  may  still  be  found  in  some  corner  of  the  East.  Irenaeus 
refers  thus  to  the  fourth  book  (Eus.  H.  E.  3.  39) :  "  This  Papias  the 
hearer  of  John,  and  the  companion  of  Polycarp,  an  ancient  man, 
testifies  in  writing  in  the  fourth  of  his  books."  "  Papias  himself, 
however,  (Eusebius  continues)  shows  in  the  preface  to  his  Words 
that  he  was  in  no  wise  himself  a  hearer  and  beholder  of  the  holy 
apostles,  and  he  teaches  in  the  following  words  that  he  received 
the  things  of  faith  from  those  who  were  the  acquaintances  of  them  : 
'  I  shall  not  hesitate  to  weave  together  with  the  comments  for  thee 
such  things  as  I  at  any  time  learned  well  from  the  elders  and  kept 
well  in  memory,  since  I  am  convinced  of  their  truth.  For  I  did 
not  take  pleasure,  as  most  people  do,  in  those  who  say  a  great 
deal,  but  in  those  that  teach  the  true  things  ;  and  not  in  those  who 
relate  foreign  commandments,  but  in  those  [who  relate]  the 
commandments  given  to  faith  by  the  Lord,  and  coming  from  the 
truth  itself.  If,  forsooth,  also  someone  came  who  had  followed 
with  the  presbyters,  I  sought  after  the  words  of  the  presbyters ; 
what  Andrew,  or  what  Peter  said,  or  what  Philip,  or  what  Thomas 
or  James,  or  what  John  or  Matthew,  or  what  any  other  of  the 
disciples  of  the  Lord,  and  what  both  Aristion  and  the  presbyter 
John,  the  disciples  of  the  Lord,  say.  For  I  did  not  account  it 
that  the  things  from  the  books  were  to  me  of  so  much  profit  as 
the  things  from  a  living  and  remaining  voice.'     Where  also  it  is 


THE   POST-APOSTOLIC   AGE— PAPIAS  99 

worthy  of  note,  that  he  counts  the  name  John  twice,  the  former 
of  which  he  combines  with  Peter  and  James  and  Matthew  and 
the  rest  of  the  apostles,  clearly  aiming  at  the  evangelist ;  and  the 
other  John,  interpunctuating  his  discourse,  he  orders  among  the 
others  who  are  aside  from  the  number  of  the  apostles,  putting 
Aristion  before  him,  and  he  clearly  names  him  a  presbyter. 
Thus  also  by  this  we  have  a  proof  that  the  history  of  the  two  who 
are  said  to  have  had  the  same  name  is  true,  and  it  is  also  said 
that  at  Ephesus  in  Asia  there  are  tombs  still  to-day  for  each  one 
of  the  Johns.  To  which  also  it  is  necessary  to  pay  attention. 
For  it  is  likely  that  the  second,  unless  someone  should  wish 
that  it  were  the  first,  saw  the  revelation  that  is  in  our  hands  said 
to  be  of  John.  And  this  Papias  now  before  us  confesses  that  he 
received  the  words  of  the  apostles  from  those  who  followed  with 
them,  but  says  that  he  himself  was  an  own  hearer  of  Aristion 
and  of  the  presbyter  John.  Accordingly,  often  referring  to  them  by 
name  in  his  books,  he  lays  before  our  view  their  traditions.  And 
this  shall  not  be  said  to  us  for  no  profit.  It  is  also  worth  while 
to  add  to  the  words  of  Papias  presented,  other  sayings  of  his  in 
which  he  relates  some  paradoxical  things,  and  other  things  as  if 
they  had  reached  him  by  tradition.  The  fact  then  that  Philip  the 
apostle  together  with  his  daughters  lived  at  Hierapolis  is  made 
known  by  the  forefathers.  And  Papias  being  at  that  [place] 
relates  that  he  received  a  miraculous  story  from  the  daughters  of 
Philip,  which  is  noteworthy.  For  he  relates  that  a  resurrection  of 
a  dead  man  took  place  in  his  day,  and  again  another  paradoxical 
thing  that  took  place  about  Justus  the  one  called  Barsabas,  as 
drinking  a  poisonous  medicine  and  experiencing  nothing  dis- 
agreeable by  the  grace  of  the  Lord." 

Eusebius  tells  us  that  Papias  quotes  First  John  and  First 
Peter,  for  he  is  looking  up  the  witnesses  for  the  books  that 
are  less  well  attested.  He  also  mentions  that  Papias  has  the 
story  of  the  Adulteress,  which  he  says  is  also  in  the  Gospel  of 
the  Hebrews.  That  does  not  in  the  least  make  us  sure  that 
that  story  belonged  to  that  Gospel.  It  may  have  been  thrust 
into  it,  just  as  it  was  thrust  into  the  Gospel  of  John.  The  story 
is  doubtless  good  tradition,  wherever  it  started.  Irenaeus  gives 
us  a  good  view  of  what  was  possible  in  the  way  of  millennial 
exegesis  at  the  hands  of  a  Papias,  and  we  need  not  remark 
that    Irenaeus    as   a   millenarian   was  well    contented    with    it. 


lOO  THE  CANON 

Irena?us  quotes  (5.  33)  the  words  of  Jesus  from  Matthew : 
"  I  will  not  drink  henceforth  of  the  fruit  of  this  vine,  until 
that  day  when  I  drink  it  new  with  you  in  My  Father's  king- 
dom," and  insists  upon  the  earthly,  the  terrestrial  character  of 
this  kingdom,  because  real  wine  could  only  be  drunk  by  real 
men.  After  referring  to  sayings  of  Jesus  touching  the  rewards 
that  those  who  have  done  or  have  suffered  for  Him  shall  receive 
in  a  clearly  mundane  sphere,  he  states  that  the  patriarchs  had 
a  right  to  look  for  the  fulfilment  of  the  promises  to  them  m  a 
solid  earthly  form,  and  not  in  vague  heavenly  blessings.  Here 
he  then  draws  from  Papias.  "  As  the  presbyters  recounted,  who 
saw  John  the  disciple  of  the  Lord,  that  they  had  heard  from  him, 
how  the  Lord  used  to  teach  about  those  days  and  to  say :  The 
days  will  come  in  which  vines  shall  grow,  each  one  having  ten 
thousand  shoots,  and  on  each  shoot  ten  thousand  branches,  and 
on  each  branch  again  ten  thousand  twigs,  and  on  each  single 
twig  ten  thousand  clusters,  and  in  each  single  cluster  ten  thousand 
grapes,  and  each  single  grape  when  pressed  shall  give  twenty-five 
measures  of  wine.  And  when  any  one  of  the  saints  shall  have 
taken  hold  of  one  of  the  bunches,  another  will  cry  out :  I  am 
a  better  bunch.  Take  me.  Bless  the  Lord  through  me.  In 
like  manner  also  a  grain  of  wheat  shall  bring  forth  ten  thousand 
heads,  and  each  single  head  will  have  ten  thousand  grains,  and 
each  single  grain  will  give  five  double  pounds  of  fine  pure 
flour.  And  the  rest,  apples  and  seeds  and  grass,  according  to 
the  same  manner.  And  all  the  animals  using  these  things  for 
food  which  are  received  from  the  earth  will  become  peaceful  and 
ready  each  in  its  place,  subject  to  men  in  all  subjection.  And 
those  things  also  Papias  the  hearer  of  John  and  the  companion 
of  Polycarp,  an  ancient  man,  testifies  in  writing  in  the  fourth  of 
his  books.  For  he  put  together  five  books.  And  he  added 
saying :  These  things  are  credible  to  those  who  believe.  And 
Judas,  he  said,  the  traitor  not  believing  but  asking :  How  then 
shall  such  growths  be  brought  about  by  the  Lord  ?  the  Lord  said : 
Those  will  see  who  shall  come  to  these  [times]." 

We  can  easily  imagine  how  Eusebius,  who  was  no  millenarian, 
despised  a  writer  who  delighted  in  these  fancies ;  but  we  shall 
nevertheless  not  regard  these  fancies  as  enough  to  put  Papias  into 
the  class  of  weak-minded  men.  Papias  was  clearly  a  wideawake 
man,  ready  and  eager  to  learn  from  any  and  every  source.     Can 


THE  POST-APOSTOLIC  AGE— PAPIAS  lOI 

we  form  any  judgment  as  to  what  the  sayings  of  the  Lord  were 
about  which  Papias  wrote  his  comments  ?  Put  the  question  differ- 
ently. Does  anything  that  we  learned  in  Eusebius  or  in  Irenaeus 
about  Papias  and  about  his  comments  give  us  a  chance  to  suspect 
that  in  those  five  books  he  considered  words  of  Jesus  that  are  not 
to  be  found  in  our  Gospels  ?  Were  his  comments  framed  upon 
the  Gospel  to  the  Hebrews,  or  on  the  Gospel  to  the  Egyptians, 
or  were  they  based  upon  all  sorts  and  descriptions  of  single  sayings 
of  Jesus  that  he  had  gathered  together  ?  We  have  no  reason  to 
think  of  anything  of  that  kind.  How  eagerly  would  Eusebius 
have  told  us  of  the  contents  of  the  book  had  that  been  its 
description  !  How  would  Anastasius  of  Sinai  in  the  sixth  century 
have  revelled  in  a  book  with  new  words  of  Jesus  !  No.  Papias' 
book  may  well  have  here  and  there  reproduced  an  unknown 
saying  of  Jesus,  as,  for  example,  in  the  supposed  reply  to  Judas 
a  moment  ago.  But  his  five  books  were  probably  a  collection 
of  all  manner  of  traditions  out  of  those  early  years  which  would 
answer  many  a  question  that  we  should  like  to  have  answered, 
but  give  us  twice  as  many  new  questions  to  answer. 

Papias'  Comments  will  probably  in  no  special  way  increase 
our  knowledge  of  the  direct  words  of  Jesus.  But  we  should  like 
to  have  them  nevertheless.  The  importance  of  Papias  for  the 
criticism  of  the  use  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  lies  not 
only  in  his  having  lived  before  the  death  of  the  Apostle  John, 
and  in  his  having  lived  until  the  middle  or  ten  years  after 
the  middle  of  the  second  century.  That  stretch  of  years  is 
extremely  interesting,  it  is  true,  but  Polycarp  has  already  given 
us  the  beginning  of  the  period  and  carried  us  well  towards  the 
end  of  it.  Papias'  weight  for  us  is  increased  because  he  comes 
from  another  and  that  an  important  town,  Hierapolis,  in  another 
province,  Phrygia,  and  indeed  from  a  town  that  has  for  us  an- 
other trifling  memory  of  interest. 

For  the  evangelist  Philip,  one  of  the  seven  chosen  in  the 
sixth  chapter  of  Acts,  and  who  in  the  twenty-first  chapter  was 
at  Caesarea,  after  went  to  Hierapolis  and  died  and  was  buried 
there ;  and  Papias  appears  to  have  seen  Philip's  daughters  with  his 
own  eyes.  That  is  a  new  proof  for  the  way  in  which  Christians 
travelled  in  those  days,  and  a  new  hook  for  the  fastening  of  the 
genuineness  of  the  books  and  of  the  lives  of  the  apostles  and  of 
the  followers  of  the  apostles.     It  is  not  the  case  that  a  great  gap 


102  THE  CANON 

separates  the  time  of  Paul  from  the  time  of  Papias,  for  example. 
The  years  were  closely  interwoven  with  the  threads  of  human 
lives.  Paul  stayed  several  days  in  Philip's  house  at  Caesarea,  and 
Philip's  four  prophesying,  virgin  daughters  must  then  have  been 
more  than  mere  children,  else  they  would  not  have  prophesied. 
At  least  two  of  the  daughters  and  perhaps  all  four  lived  later 
with  Philip  at  Hierapolis.  Can  we  suppose  that  they  forgot  that 
Paul  had  spent  several  days  at  their  house  at  Caesarea  ?  They 
may  well  have  spoken  of  Paul  to  Papias,  if  Papias  when  he  saw 
them  was  more  than  a  little  boy.  This  is  not  to  be  called  playing 
with  earnest  things.  This  is  scientific  consideration  of  the  facts  of 
personal  intercourse,  which  go  to  connect  the  earliest  period  of 
Christianity  with  the  beginnings  of  a  more  definitely  tangible 
and  in  a  literary  way  more  firmly  based  history  in  the  middle  of 
the  second  century.  Whether  or  not  Philip  had  seen  Jesus,  we 
do  not  know.  It  is  possible  that  he  had  seen  Him.  It  is  further 
to  be  kept  in  mind  that  Papias  was  not  a  mere  lay  member  of 
the  Church  at  Hierapolis,  but  its  bishop,  one,  therefore,  who  will 
have  had  every  opportunity  and  every  right  to  have  searched  out 
carefully  all  the  memories  of  the  past  in  those  circles. 

Papias  refers  to  presbyters,  to  elders  who  had  furnished  him 
with  valuable  information  from  former  times.  That  was  due  and 
proper  tradition.  We  have  a  similar  reference  to  presbyters  in 
Irenaeus,  and  it  will  be  worth  our  while  to  see  what  these 
presbyters  to  whom  Irenaeus  refers  have  to  tell  us  touching  the 
books  of  the  New  Testament.  Irenaeus  writes,  for  example : 
"  As  I  heard  from  a  certain  presbyter,  who  had  heard  from  those 
who  had  seen  the  apostles  and  from  those  who  had  learned  (who 
had  themselves  been  apostles  ?) :  that  for  the  older  circles  in  the 
case  of  things  which  they  did  without  the  counsel  of  the  spirit, 
the  blame  was  enough  which  was  taken  from  the  Scriptures.  For 
since  God  is  no  respecter  of  persons.  He  placed  a  fitting  blame 
on  things  not  done  according  to  His  decree."  After  giving 
examples  from  David  and  Solomon,  Irenaeus  continues:  "The 
scripture  bore  hard  in  upon  him,  as  the  presbyter  said,  so  that  no 
flesh  may  boast  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord.  And  that  for  this  reason 
the  Lord  went  down  to  the  parts  below  the  earth,  preaching  the 
gospel  of  His  coming  also  to  them,  there  being  a  remission  of 
sins  for  those  who  believe  on  Him.  But  their  deeds — the  deeds 
of  the  great  ones  of  the  Old  Testament — were  written  for  our 


THE  POST-APOSTOLIC  AGE— PAPIAS  I03 

correction,  that  we  should  know  first  of  all  that  our  God  and 
theirs  is  one,  whom  sins  do  not  please,  even  when  they  are  done 
by  great  men  ;  and  in  the  next  place  that  we  refrain  from  evils. 
We  should  not  therefore  say  that  the  elders  were  proud,  nor 
should  we  blame  those  of  old  times,  but  ourselves  fear,  lest  by 
chance  after  having  recognised  Christ,  doing  something  that  does 
not  please  God,  we  should  have  no  further  remission  of  our 
offences,  but  should  be  shut  out  from  His  kingdom.  And  that 
therefore  Paul  said  :  For  if  He  did  not  spare  the  natural  branches, 
lest  He  by  chance  spare  not  thee,  who  being  a  wild  olive  was 
inserted  in  the  fat  olive  and  wast  made  a  companion  of  its 
fatness  :  and  similarly  seeing  that  the  prevarications  of  the  people 
are  described,  not  because  of  those  who  then  transgressed,  but 
for  our  correction,  and  that  we  should  know  that  it  is  one  and 
the  same  God  against  whom  they  then  used  to  sin,  and  against 
whom  some  now  sin  who  say  that  they  have  believed.  And  that 
the  apostle  had  most  clearly  shown  this  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Corinthians,  saying  :  I  would  not  that  ye  should  be  ignorant  .  .  . 
let  him  see  to  it  that  he  fall  not." 

"  The  presbyters  used  to  show  that  those  were  very  senseless 
who  from  the  things  which  happened  to  those  who  of  old 
did  not  obey  God,  try  to  introduce  another  father."  This 
is  evidently  pointed  at  men  who  like  Marcion  condemned 
the  cruelty  of  the  God  of  the  Old  Testament  and  explained 
that  the  New  Testament  and  Christ  proceeded  from  a  totally 
different  God  who  is  a  loving  Father.  Irenaeus  proceeds 
with  the  presbyters  :  "  On  the  contrary,  placing  over  against  that 
how  great  things  the  Lord's  coming  had  done  for  the  purpose  of 
saving  those  who  received  Him,  pitying  them.  But  remaining 
silent  as  to  His  judgment  and  as  to  what  shall  happen  to  those 
who  have  heard  His  words  and  have  not  done  them,  and  that  it 
were  better  for  them  if  they  had  never  been  born,  and  that  it  will 
be  more  tolerable  for  Sodom  and  Gomorra  in  the  judgment  than 
for  that  city  which  did  not  receive  the  word  of  His  disciples." 
Against  similar  deprecation  of  theft  commanded  by  the  God  of 
the  Old  Testament  another  passage  is  directed  :  "  Who,  moreover, 
blame  it  and  reckon  it  [f(Sr  evil]  that  the  people  when  about  to 
set  out,  by  the  command  of  God  received  vessels  of  all  kinds,  and 
robes  from  the  Egyptians,  and  thus  departed,  from  which  things 
also  the  tabernacle  was   made  in   the   desert,  not  knowing  the 


104  'T^^E  CANON 

justifications  of  God  and  His  arrangements  they  prove  themselves 
[bad]  as  also  the  presbyter  used  to  say." 

Another  passage  aims  at  the  same  false  views,  and  brings 
a  phrase  that  particularly  interests  us :  "  In  the  same  manner 
also  the  presbyter,  the  disciple  of  the  apostles,  used  to  dis- 
course about  the  two  Testaments,  showing  that  they  were  both 
from  one  and  the  same  God.  For  neither  was  there  another 
God  besides  Him  that  made  and  shaped  us,  nor  had  the  words 
of  those  any  foundation  who  say  that  this  world  which  is  in 
our  day  was  made  by  angels  or  by  some  other  power  or  by 
some  other  God."  The  calling  the  presbyter  a  disciple  of  the 
apostles  is  probably  a  slip  of  Irenaeus',  or  it  may  be  of  his  trans- 
lator's, for  this  is  only  extant  in  Latin.  The  great  point  here  for 
our  purpose  is  that  Irenaeus  makes  the  presbyter  speak  of  the  two 
Testaments,  that  is  to  say  of  the  Old  and  the  New  Testament. 
This  fits  in  with  what  we  shall  in  a  moment  relate  about 
Melito  of  Sardes.  Unfortunately,  however,  in  an  account  of  this 
remote  kind  we  cannot  tell  whether  the  presbyter  himself  really 
used  the  expression  Testaments  or  not.  He  may  have  used  it. 
But  it  is  (i)  presbyter,  (2)  Irenaeus,  (3)  translator  before  it  reaches 
us.  In  another  place  Irenaeus  does  not  write  the  word  presbyter, 
but  "  one  of  those  who  went  before  "  :  "  And  as  a  certain  one  of 
those  who  went  before  said,  [Christ]  by  the  (divine)  stretching 
forth  of  His  hands  was  bringing  the  two  peoples  together  to  the 
one  God."     That  is  a  beautiful  thought  for  the  crucifixion. 

In  another  passage  we  simply  have  an  unknown  earlier 
author  whom  Irenaeus  quotes,  how  much  earlier  does  not  ap- 
pear. "  God  does  all  things  in  measure  and  in  order,  and  there 
is  with  Him  nothing  unmeasured,  because  there  is  nothing 
unnumbered.  And  someone  said  well  that  the  unmeasured 
Father  Himself  is  measured  in  the  Son.  For  the  Son  is  a  measure 
of  the  Father,  since  He  also  receives  Him."  Once  Irenaeus  says 
that  the  earlier  Christians  w^ere  better  than  those  of  his  day  : 
"  Wherefore  those  who  were  before  us  and  indeed  much  better 
than  we,  nevertheless  could  not  sufificiently  reply  to  those  who 
were  of  the  school  of  Valentinus."  Our  Lord's  age  Irenaeus 
knows  from  tradition  :  "  But  that  the  first  age  of  thirty  years  is 
the  youthful  disposition  and  reached  up  to  the  fortieth  year, 
everyone  will  agree.  From  the  fortieth,  however,  and  the  fiftieth 
year  it  declines  already  towards  the  older  age,  in  possession  of 


THE   POST-APOSTOLIC   AGE— POLVCARP  I05 

which  our  Lord  used  to  teach  as  the  Gospel  and  all  the  presbyters 
testify,  who  came  together  with  John  the  disciple  of  the  Lord  in 
Asia,  that  John  handed  this  down."  It  is  likely  that  the  source 
for  these  references  of  Irenaeus  to  the  presbyters  was  Polycarp. 
"  But  certain  of  them  saw  not  only  John,  but  also  other  apostles  ; 
and  they  heard  these  same  things  from  them,  and  witness  to  an 
account  of  this  kind."  All  this  shows  us  the  living  fulness  of 
these  years  for  the  Christians.  It  is  totally  false  to  suppose  that 
the  books  of  the  New  Testament  were  during  all  these  years 
living  a  merely  tentative  life,  and  that  they  were  not  in  the 
common  possession  of  the  mass  of  Christians. 

Polycarp  was  bishop  at  Smyrna,  Papias  was  bishop  at 
Hierapolis,  Melito  was  bishop  at  Sardes.  We  mention  him 
here  in  the  post-apostolic  age  as  standing  near  to  the  other  two 
earlier  bishops  with  whom  he  probably  had  much  to  do.  Melito 
presented  his  Apology  to  Marcus  Antoninus  probably  in  the  year 
176,  but  other  wTitings  of  his  are  of  an  earlier  time.  Onesimus 
asked  Melito  to  make  what  we  might  call  an  anthology,  a  bunch 
of  flowers,  from  the  Law  and  the  Prophets  touching  the  Saviour 
and  the  faith  in  general,  and  apparently  asked  him  to  give  what 
we  might  name  an  introduction  to  the  Old  Testament,  that  is  to 
say,  some  explanations,  presumably  for  Christians  who  had  been 
originally  heathen,  about  the  old  books.  Melito  took  the  matter 
seriously  and  went  to  the  East  to  make  researches  about  the  books 
and  the  events.  "Melito  to  Onesimus  the  brother,  greetings. 
Since  thou  often  didst  in  thy  zeal  for  the  w^ord  demand  that 
selections  should  be  made  both  from  the  Law  and  the  Prophets 
about  the  Saviour  and  all  our  faith,  and  thou,  moreover,  didst 
earnestly  take  counsel  to  learn  the  details  about  the  old  books, 
how  many  their  number  and  what  their  order  might  be,  I  hasten 
to  do  this,  understanding  thy  zeal  for  the  faith  and  thy  love  for 
learning  about  the  word,  and  because  thou  placest  before  all 
things  these  questions  in  thy  longing  towards  God,  striving  for 
eternal  salvation.  Having  therefore  gone  to  the  East  and  reached 
the  place  where  [it  all]  was  preached  and  came  to  pass,  and 
having  learned  exactly  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  I  have 
sent  a  list  of  them."  Of  course  when  Onesimus  asked  about 
the  old  books,  he  must  have  had  new  books  also  in  mind.  And 
when  Melito  sent  him  a  list  of  the  Old  Testament  books,  he  must 
have  thought  of  a  New  Testament  as  the  other  side.     But  we 


I06  THE  CANON 

have  no  list  of  New  Testament  books  from  him,  although  we 
know  that  he  wrote  a  book  on  the  Revelation. 

After  the  list  of  the  books  Melito  said  to  Onesimus  :  "  From 
which  also  I  made  the  selections,  dividing  them  into  six  books." 
I  confess  to  a  certain  surprise  in  the  thought  that  Melito  of 
Sardes  really  went  to  Palestine  in  order  to  search  out  the  names 
of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  and  to  make  the  selections 
from  them.  I  had  altogether  forgotten  that  he  thus  appears  to 
show  that  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  were  not  in  their 
entirety  at  his  command  in  Sardes.  To  reflect  upon  the  matter, 
I  have  been  inclined  to  think  that  in  the  larger  synagogues  in  the 
great  cities  of  the  Roman  Empire  the  Jews  had  in  their  hands,  as 
a  rule,  all  or  the  most  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament.  It  is 
true  that  Melito's  case  does  not  directly  clash  with  this  thought, 
since  it  would  have  been  possible,  conceivable,  that  at  Melito's 
day  the  authorities  in  a  Jewish  synagogue  would  refuse  to  show 
their  holy  books  to  a  Christian  bishop.  Yet  possible  as  this  may 
be,  I  do  not  regard  it  as  likely.  The  Jews  are  not  known  as  book 
concealers.  I  am  the  rather  inclined  to  assume  that  Melito's 
words  find  their  point  in  the  two  thoughts,  first  that  the  number 
of  the  books  was  differently  given  by  different  Jews ;  and  second, 
that  Melito  wished  both  for  authoritative  certainty  as  to  the 
number,  which  he  thought  most  properly  to  be  sought  in 
the  East,  and  for  an  authoritative  text  from  which  to  make  the 
selections  desired  by  Onesimus.  Further,  I  think  that  the  greater 
knowledge  of  the  exegete  who  has  been  upon  the  ground,  was  a 
special  object  of  Melito's  in  his  journey.  In  any  case  we  must 
use  this  lateral  testimony  of  Melito's  to  repress  our  inclination  to 
think  that  each  great  Christian  Church  must  have  of  necessity 
had  a  complete  set  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament.  The 
great  Churches  will  probably  have  had  the  Law  and  the 
Prophets  and  the  Psalms.  It  is  not  impossible  that  many  a 
Jewish  synagogue  in  the  diaspora  had  no  more  of  the  Old 
Testament  than  this. 

Melito  seems  to  have  been  a  very  prolific  writer  for  his  time, 
although  but  little  has  been  preserved  to  our  day.  We  find  in 
his  writings  quotations  from  all  the  books  of  the  New  Testament 
save  James  and  Jude  and  Second  and  Third  John.  He  gives 
(Fragm.  15)  a  summary  of  the  life  of  Jesus  in  his  book  on  Faith. 
He  writes  with  an  impetus :    ''  From  the  Law  and  the  Prophets 


THE  POST-APOSTOLIC  AGE— MELITO  I07 

we  gather  those  things  which  are  foretold  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  so  that  we  may  demonstrate  to  your  charity  that  He  is 
the  perfect  mind,  the  Word  of  God.  It  is  He  Himself  who 
was  born  before  the  light.  He  Himself  is  the  Creator  with  the 
Father,  He  Himself  is  the  former  of  man.  He  Himself  it  is  who 
was  all  things  in  all :  it  is  He  who  was  the  Patriarch  in  the 
patriarchs,  in  the  law  the  Law,  among  the  priests  the  Chief  Priest, 
among  the  kings  the  Ruler,  among  prophets  the  Prophet,  among 
Angels  the  Archangel,  in  voice  the  Word,  among  spirits  the  Spirit, 
in  the  Father  the  Son,  in  God  God,  King  to  the  ages  of  ages. 
For  this  is  He  who  to  Noah  was  the  Pilot,  He  who  led 
Abraham,  He  who  was  bound  with  Isaac,  He  who  wandered 
with  Jacob,  He  who  was  sold  with  Joseph,  He  who  was  Leader 
with  Moses,  He  who  with  Joshua  the  son  of  Nun  distributed  the 
inheritance.  He  who  through  David  and  the  prophets  foretold 
His  sufferings :  He  who  in  the  Virgin  became  incarnate,  He 
who  was  born  at  Bethlehem,  He  who  was  swathed  in  swaddling- 
bands  in  the  cradle.  He  who  was  seen  by  the  shepherds.  He 
who  was  praised  by  the  angels.  He  who  was  worshipped  by  the 
wise  men.  He  who  was  heralded  by  John,  He  who  gathered 
together  the  apostles,  He  who  preached  the  kingdom.  He 
who  healed  the  lame.  He  who  gave  light  to  the  blind,  He  who 
raised  the  dead,  He  who  was  seen  in  the  temple.  He  who  was 
not  believed  in  by  the  people,  He  who  was  betrayed  by  Judas, 
He  who  was  seized  by  the  priests.  He  who  was  judged  by  Pilate, 
He  who  with  nails  was  fixed  to  the  cross.  He  who  was  hung 
Mpon  the  wood.  He  who  was  buried  in  the  earth.  He  who  rose 
yrom  the  dead,  He  who  appeared  to  the  apostles.  He  who  was 
borne  above  to  heaven.  He  who  sits  at  the  right  hand  of  the 
Father,  He  who  is  the  Rest  of  the  dead,  the  Finder  of  the  lost, 
the  Light  of  those  who  are  in  darkness,  the  Redeemer  of  captives, 
the  Guide  of  the  erring,  the  Refuge  of  the  mourning,  the  Bride- 
groom of  the  Church,  the  Charioteer  of  the  cherubim,  the  Chie^ 
of  the  army  of  the  angels,  God  of  God,  Son  from  the  Father,, 
Jesus  Christ  King  to  the  ages.  Amen."  We  feel  as  we  read  that, 
that  Melito  had  at  least  in  general  our  New  Testament  books. 
His  summing  up  brings  no  element  that  is  strange  to  us. 

We  have  passed  by  the  middle  of  the  second  century.  The 
time  of  the  Old  Catholic  Church  is  at  hand.  Christianity  is 
consolidating   itself.     Among   orthodox   Christians,   among   the 


I08  THE  CANON 

general  body  of  Christians  in  the  great  Church,  there  is  nothing 
like  the  violent  rending  into  two  parties  which  was  suggested  by 
some  scholars  in  the  former  century,  the  nineteenth  century.  It 
has  sometimes  been  suggested  that  Papias,  whose  writings  give 
very  little  from  Paul,  was  an  opponent  of  Paul.  I  should  rather 
take  it  that  Papias  did  not  fully  comprehend  the  difference 
between  his  point  of  view  and  that  of  Paul.  And  I  regard  it  as 
likely  that  the  fact  that  we  do  not  see  Paul's  writings  in  his  text, 
depends  in  a  large  measure  upon  his  dreamy  fanciful  way  of 
thinking  and  writing  that  had  no  special  hold  in  Pauline  Epistles. 
The  Church  is  essentially  one,  aside  from  the  great  sects,  aside 
from  Gnostics,  and  Marcionists,  and  Montanists,  let  us  say.  But 
the  size  of  the  Church  begins  to  be  appreciable.  The  Christians 
feel  more  and  more  strongly  how  many  men  there  are,  east  and 
west  and  north  and  south,  for  whom  they  are  in  a  measure 
responsible,  whose  opinions  are  charged  to  them.  And  they  see 
in  the  growing  sects  a  danger  for  themselves,  a  danger  for  the 
Church.  The  natural  simplicity  of  the  first  Christian  Church  is 
gone  beyond  recall.  The  Churches  have  already  certainly  some- 
times, like  the  Church  at  Smyrna,  begun  to  pray  for  "peace  for 
the  Churches  through  all  the  world." 

During  this  period  Christianity  has  had  the  great  task  of 
expansion.  It  had  had  the  duty  laid  upon  it  to  go  out  into  all 
the  world  and  preach  and  baptize  and  make  disciples.  It  had 
through  all  these  years  the  need  of  defending  itself,  of  holding 
its  ground  against  the  Jews.  But  that  task  has  gradually  begun 
to  vanish.  The  Jews  have  no  longer  their  determining  import 
for  the  position  and  acceptance  of  the  Christian  communities  on 
the  great  roads  of  the  Roman  Empire.  Here  and  there  in 
remoter  corners  a  little  of  the  old  combination  of  Jew  and 
Christian  confuses  the  gaze  of  officials  from  time  to  time.  That 
is  all.  Christianity  has  ever  in  increasing  measure  found  itself 
compelled  to  justify  and  declare  itself  over  against  heathenism. 
Now  an  official  was  suspicious,  now^  one  \vas  curious,  now  one 
was  indifferent,  now  one  was  overbearing  and  cruel.  For  all 
their  duties  the  Christians  found  that  the  written  word  was  the 
least  important  thing  for  them.  Their  first  and  great  duty,  the 
preaching,  was  the  continuation  of  the  preaching  of  the  apostles. 
And  that  was  anything  and  everything  but  preaching  from  texts. 
It  was  the  heralding  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  the  kingdom  of  the 


THE  POST-APOSTOLIC  AGE  IO9 

heavens.  It  was  the  preaching  of  the  Son  of  Man,  the  Son  of 
God.  This  preaching  was  not  preaching  upon  the  Gospels  or 
out  of  the  Gospels  or  about  the  Gospels.  It  was  a  Gospel  itself. 
It  was  such  a  segment  of  a  Gospel  as  the  time  and  the  place 
permitted  the  speaker  to  lay  before  his  hearers.  As  for  the 
apostles,  the  Christians  busied  themselves  less  with  their  words 
and  more  with  their  thoughts.  The  Greek  language,  the 
common  language  of  the  Roman  Empire,  played  its  part  in  all 
this.  It  was  the  language  of  the  greater  number  of  the 
preachers.  In  it  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  were  first 
written.  Most  of  all  the  Christians  asked  about  the  facts,  the 
events  of  the  life  of  Jesus,  less  about  the  notes  that  had  been 
written  down  about  that  life. 

But  that  is  beginning  to  change.  The  written  reports  are 
beginning  to  excite  more  interest.  The  power  of  tradition  by 
word  of  mouth  is  fading  gradually  away.  We  see  thus  far,  if 
we  close  our  eyes  to  the  rough  work  of  Marcion,  nothing  that 
looks  like  the  exercise  of  careful  critical  judgment  in  efforts  to 
determine  the  nature  of  Christian  writings  or  their  origin  or  their 
value  for  the  Church,  or  their  possible  danger  for  the  minds  of 
the  unlearned.  No  one  has  thus  far  come  forth  with  the  assumed 
or  with  the  imposed  mission  to  settle  questions  about  books  that 
should  be  used  for  one  purpose  or  another.  Marcion  alone  has 
taken  up  these  points  for  his  followers,  but  that  is  of  no  interest 
for  the  rest  of  the  Christians.  The  books  have  had  to  care  for 
themselves,  to  make  their  own  way,  fight  their  own  battles,  lead 
their  own  retreats.  That  does  not,  however,  in  the  least  mean, 
that  the  early  Christians  took,  hit  or  miss  without  looking  at  it 
twice,  any  book  that  was  thrust  into  their  hands.  Far  from  it. 
The  first  books  arose  in  small  circles  in  which  each  man  knew 
each  other.  None  needed  to  ask  who  brought  forward  the  given 
book.  Everyone  saw  and  knew  whence  the  book  came.  If  the 
book  came  from  afar,  from  Rome  to  Corinth  or  to  Ephesus  or 
to  Tarsus  or  to  Antioch,  each  Christian  knew  again  who  had 
brought  it,  and  whence  he  had  brought  it,  and  why  he  had 
brought  it. 

Little  by  little  during  all  this  post-apostolic  age  the  written 
treasures  of  the  Churches  had  been  growing  and  gathering.  The 
great  Churches  in  the  great  cities  on  the  great  roads  of  travel 
will   have   at   a   very  early  time   gotten    by  far   the  larger  part 


IIO  THE  CANON  ' 

of  what  we  now  have  in  the  New  Testament.  City  after  city 
and  Church  after  Church  will  have  sent  in  its  contribution  to  the 
list.  In  the  provinces  and  in  the  villages  the  process  will  have 
spread  but  slowly.  There  was  too  little  money  and  too  little 
education  to  secure  for  the  small  places  for  decades  that  which 
had  long  been  in  the  hands  of  the  large  Churches.  The  same 
influence  wrought  in  a  like  manner  in  reference  to  other  books, 
to  books  that  were  not  to  the  same  degree  acceptable  to  the 
Churches.  A  certain  uncertainty  and  a  vacillating  determination 
will  here  and  there  have  played  a  part  in  helping  a  book  upwards 
into  the  more  treasured,  or  downwards  into  the  less  favoured 
regions  of  Christian  literary  liking.  No  authority  saw  to  the  due 
criticism.  The  book  rose  or  fell.  It  was  more  used,  it  was  less 
used.  But  one  thing  was  gradually  going  forth  from  the  process 
of  writing  and  of  preserving  and  of  valuing  the  books,  and 
that  was  the  general  acceptance  of  the  mass  of  the  books  of 
the  New  Testament  as  books  that  were  of  peculiar  value  to 
Christians.  This  peculiar  value  showed  itself  in  their  being 
placed  with  or  even  placed  before  the  books  of  the  Old 
Testament.  The  equality  of  the  two  series  of  books  came 
most  distinctly  to  view  in  the  public  services  of  the  Churches. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  lack  of  value  that  showed  itself  in  the 
case  of  other  books,  was  seen  more  clearly  than  anywhere 
else  in  the  fact  that  these  other  books  were  not  allowed 
in  the  public  services  of  the  Churches  to  claim  for  themselves 
the  first  rank,  to  reach  the  point  at  which  they  could  be  read 
at  the  chief  place  in  the  Church  as  the  expression  of  words 
which  God  had  to  say  to  Men. 


Ill 


III. 

THE  AGE  OF  I  RE  N^  US, 

160-200. 

In  the  post-apostolic  age  we  found  Christians  from  widely 
distant  lands  meeting  and  crossing  each  other's  paths,  and 
giving  witness  on  one  side  and  on  the  other  to  the  oneness 
of  the  great  body  of  Christians,  to  the  undisturbed  sequence 
of  Christian  tradition,  and  to  the  silently  presupposed  existence 
of  the  more  important  books  of  the  New  Testament.  The 
period  to  which  we  now  direct  our  gaze  will  uphold  the  character 
of  early  Christianity  in  respect  to  widely  spread  Churches,  and 
in  respect  to  men  of  letters  who  journeyed  afar,  and  who  were 
therefore  able  to  give  practical  examples  of  ecclesiastical  unity, 
who  in  their  journeys  did  much  to  knit  more  closely  the  bonds 
of  fellowship  which  united  the  Churches  to  each  other,  and 
who  in  their  discussions  or  in  their  works  did  much  to  prepare 
or  to  usher  in  the  first  great  literary  and  scientific  period  of 
the  growing  Church.  We  have  therefore  to  do  especially  with 
Hegesippus  who  carries  us  to  Palestine  but  does  not  leave  us 
there,  to  Tatian  who  draws  our  eyes  towards  Syria  only  to 
send  us  back  to  the  West,  to  a  curious  fragment  of  a  list  of 
the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  to  the  Bishop  Dionysius 
of  Corinth  and  to  the  Bishop  Pinytus  of  Cnossus  on  the  Island 
of  Crete,  to  Athenagoras  of  Athens,  then  to  the  East  again  to 
the  Bishop  Theophilus  of  Antioch,  then  far  to  the  West  to 
the  letter  written  by  the  Churches  of  Vienne  and  Lyons  in 
Gaul.  Irenaeus,  the  bishop  of  Lyons,  binds  the  East  to  the 
West,  for  he  came  from  Smyrna.  A  heathen  named  Celsus 
will  call  for  a  word  or  two.  And  we  must  cast  a  glance 
at  one  and  the  other  of  the  versions  into  which  the  early 
Church  translated  her  sacred  books  so  as  to  make  them  more 
easily  accessible  in  wider  circles. 


112  THE  CANON 

Hegesippus  is  a  very  interesting  man,  and  he  will  be  still 
more  interesting  when  someone  draws  forth  his  book  from 
a  Syrian  or  an  Armenian  or  a  Coptic  library.  He  was  probably 
born  in  Palestine.  Eusebius,  referring  to  his  use  of  Semitic 
languages,  adds :  "  showing  that  he  himself  had  come  to  the 
faith  from  the  Hebrews."  Sometimes  people  have  proceeded 
from  that  observation  of  Eusebius  to  reason  that  Hegesippus 
was  a  rabid  Jew  of  the  Ebionitic  Christian  group.  There  is, 
however,  not  only  no  proof  of  anything  of  that  kind,  but  there 
is  plenty  to  show  that  precisely  the  opposite  was  the  case. 
For  we  shall  see  that  he  was  a  Christian  in  good  and  regular 
standing,  and  that  he  ever  bore  himself  accordingly.  He  should 
by  rights  have  been  born  at  an  early  date,  seeing  that 
Eusebius  declares  that  he  "was  of  the  first  succession  of  the 
apostles."  That  phrase  cannot,  however,  well  be  taken  very 
exactly,  unless — what  no  one  reports — Hegesippus  lived  to 
be  extremely  old.  Hegesippus  is  the  author  who  has  given 
us  at  length  the  story  of  the  martyrdom  of  James  the  brother 
of  Jesus,  and  I  shall  give  it  here  as  a  guarantee  for  Hegesippus' 
knowledge  of  the  early  Church,  but  as  well  as  an  example  of 
the  Jewish  character  of  the  Christianity  of  James  and  of  his 
friend  the  Apostle  Paul,  who  had  taken  a  vow  at  Jerusalem 
a  few  years  before,  but  escaped  immediate  death  owing  to  his 
Roman  citizenship. 

James  showed  himself  a  man  (Eus.  H.  E.  2.  23):  "The 
brother  of  the  Lord,  James,  receives  the  Church  in  succession 
with  the  aposdes,  the  one  who  was  by  all  called  the  Just  from 
the  times  of  the  Lord  till  our  day,  since  many  were  called  James. 
This  one  was  holy  from  his  mother's  womb.  He  drank  no  wine 
nor  spirits,  nor  did  he  eat  meat.  A  razor  did  not  go  up  upon 
his  head,  he  did  not  anoint  himself  with  oil,  and  he  used  no 
bath.  For  him  alone  it  was  allowed  to  go  into  the  Holies.  For 
he  wore  no  wool  ,but  only  linen,  and  he  alone  went  into  the 
temple,  and  was  found  lying  on  his  knees,  and  begging  for  the 
remission  [of  the  sins]  of  the  people,  so  that  his  knees  were 
hardened  off  like  the  knees  of  a  camel,  because  of  his  ever 
bending  them  praying  to  God  and  begging  remission  for  the 
people.  And  by  reason  of  the  exceeding  greatness  of  his 
righteousness  he  was  called  Just,  and  Oblias,  which  in  Greek  is 
bulwark  of  the  people  and  righteousness,  as  the  prophets  make 


THE  AGE  OF   IREN^US— HEGESIPPUS  II3 

plain  touching  him."  Here  I  must  make  a  parenthesis.  In 
another  place  (Eus.  H.  E.  4.  22)  Hegesippus  tells  about  seven 
heresies  or  diverse  opinions  among  the  Jews,  and  this  I  must  put 
here :  "  And  there  were  different  opinions  in  the  circumcision 
among  the  sons  of  Israel,  of  which  these  were  against  the  tribe  of 
Judah  and  of  the  Christ :  Essaeans,  Galilaeans,  Hemerobaptists, 
Masbotheans,  Samaritans,  Sadducees,  Pharisees." 

Now  we  go  back  to  the  story  of  James  :  "  Some,  then,  of  the 
seven  heresies  among  the  people,  of  those  that  I  wrote  of  above 
in  these  memoirs,  inquired  of  him  what  the  door  of  Jesus  was. 
And  he  said  this  was  the  Saviour.  From  which  circumstance  some 
believed  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ.  And  the  aforesaid  heresies 
believed  not  that  there  is  a  resurrection,  or  that  each  man 
will  have  to  return  [judgment]  according  to  his  works.  But 
as  many  as  believed,  it  was  because  of  James.  Many  then 
also  of  the  rulers  believing,  there  was  a  tumult  of  the  Jews 
and  scribes  and  Pharisees  saying,  that  the  whole  people  is 
in  danger  of  awaiting  Jesus  the  Christ.  Therefore  coming 
together  with  James,  they  said :  We  beg  you,  hold  the  people 
back,  since  it  is  going  astray  to  Jesus,  as  if  He  were  the  Christ. 
We  beseech  thee  to  persuade  all  those  coming  to  the  Day  of 
the  Passover,  about  Jesus.  For  all  obey  thee.  For  we  bear 
witness  to  thee,  and  all  the  people  [bears  witness]  that  thou 
art  just,  and  that  thou  dost  not  respect  persons.  Persuade  thou, 
then,  the  people  not  to  go  astray  about  Jesus.  For  all  the  people 
and  we  all  obey  thee.  Stand,  therefore,  on  the  pinnacle  of 
the  temple,  so  that  thou  mayest  be  visible  from  above,  and  that 
thy  words  may  be  readily  heard  by  all  the  people.  For  on 
account  of  the  Passover  all  the  tribes  have  come  together, 
also  with  the  Gentiles.  So  the  aforesaid  scribes  and  Pharisees 
stood  James  upon  the  pinnacle  of  the  temple,  and  cried  to  him 
and  said :  O  Just  One,  whom  we  all  ought  to  obey,  since  the 
people  goes  astray  behind  Jesus  the  crucified,  announce  to  us 
what  the  door  of  Jesus  is.  And  he  answered  with  a  loud  voice : 
Why  do  you  ask  me  about  Jesus  the  Son  of  Man,  and  He  is 
seated  in  Heaven  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Great  Power,  and 
He  is  going  to  come  upon  the  clouds  of  Heaven.  And  many 
were  receiving  these  words  and  rejoicing  at  the  testimony  of 
James,  and  saying,  Hosanna  to  the  Son  of  David.  Then  again 
the  same  scribes  and  Pharisees  said  to  each  other :  We  did 
8 


114  THE  CANON 

ill  affording  such  a  testimony  for  Jesus.  But  let  us  go  up 
and  throw  him  down,  so  that  fearing  they  may  not  believe  in 
him.  And  they  all  cried :  O !  O !  even  the  Just  One  has 
gone  astray.  And  they  fulfilled  the  scripture  written  in  Isaiah  : 
Let  us  take  away  the  Just  One,  for  he  is  unprofitable  to  us. 
Therefore  they  shall  eat  the  fruits  of  their  works.  And  going 
up  they  cast  down  the  Just  One,  and  said  to  each  other:  Let 
us  stone  James  the  Just.  And  they  began  to  stone  him,  since 
in  falling  down  he  had  not  died.  But  turning  he  kneeled  saying : 
I  beseech  thee.  Lord  God  I'ather,  forgive  them  :  for  they  know 
not  what  they  do.  And  thus  they  stoning  him,  one  of  the 
priests,  of  the  sons  of  Rechab  the  son  of  Rachabim  of  those 
witnessed  to  by  Jeremiah  the  prophet,  cried,  saying:  Stop! 
What  do  ye?  The  Just  One  is  {)raying  for  you.  And  one  of  them 
took  a  fuller's  bar  with  which  they  beat  the  garments,  and 
brought  it  down  on  the  head  of  the  Just  One.  And  thus  he 
became  a  martyr.  And  they  buried  him  in  the  place  by  the 
temple,  and  his  pillar  still  remains  there  by  the  temple.  This 
one  became  a  true  martyr  both  to  Jews  and  Greeks,  that  Jesus 
is  the  Christ.     And  immediately  Vespasian  besieges  them." 

That  shows  us  how  the  early  Christians  lived  and  died,  and  how 
well  Hegcsippus  knew  about  them.  That  is  taken  from  the  fifth 
hook  of  his  Memoirs.  liut  Eusebius  shows  us  in  another  passage 
that  Hegesippus  also  saw  and  wrote  of  what  the  heathen  did. 
ICusebius  (H.  E.  4.  7,  8)  recounts  the  heathen  Gnostics,  and  ob- 
serves :  "  Nevertheless  then  the  truth  again  brought  up.  against 
these  whom  we  have  mentioned,  and  set  in  the  midst  of  the  fray 
several  of  her  champions,  warring  against  the  godless  heresies  not 
alone  by  unwritten  debates  but  also  by  written  proofs.  Among 
these  Hegesippus  was  well  known,  from  whom  we  have  already 
quoted  many  sayings,  as  presenting  from  his  traditions  some  things 
from  the  times  of  the  apostles.  So  then  this  [Hegesippus]  in 
five  books  giving  the  memoirs  of  the  unerring  tradition  of  the 
apostolic  preaching  in  the  most  simple  order  of  writing,  notes 
for  the  time  alluded  to  (or  for  the  time  that  he  knew  about) 
touching  those  who  at  the  beginning  founded  the  idols,  writing 
about  in  this  way  :  To  which  they  set  up  cenotai)hs  and  temples 
as  up  to  this  day,  among  whom  is  also  Antinous  the  slave  of 
the  Emperor  Hadrian,  where  also  the  Antinous  game  is  held, 
lasting  up   to   our   time,   for   he   also    built   a   city  named    for 


THE  AGE  OF   IREN^<:US— HEGESIPPUS  I  15 

Antinous,  and  (instituted?)  prophets."  Eusebius  (H.  E.  4.  21) 
shows  us  how  highly  he  valued  Hegesippus  by  the  list  in  which 
he  places  him  at  the  head  in  referring  to  that  time :  "  And  there 
flourished  at  that  time  in  the  Church  not  only  Hegesippus  whom 
we  know  from  what  was  said  above,  but  also  Dionysius  the  bishop 
of  the  Corinthians,  and  Pinytus  another  bishop  of  the  Christians 
in  Crete,  and,  further,  Philip  and  Apolinarius  and  Melito,  both 
Musanos  and  Modestus,  and  above  all  Irenaeus,  from  [all  of] 
whom  also  the  orthodoxy  of  the  apostolical  tradition  of  the  sound 
faith  has  come  down  to  us  in  writing.  Hegesippus  therefore, 
in  the  five  [books  of]  Memoirs  which  have  reached  us,  has  left 
behind  him  a  very  full  minute  of  his  own  opinion,  in  which 
he  sets  forth  that  he  held  converse  with  a  great  many  bishops 
on  his  journey  as  far  as  Rome,  and  that  he  received  from  all 
the  same  teaching.  It  is  fitting  to  hear  him,  after  he  has  said 
something  about  the  letter  of  Clement  to  the  Corinthians,  adding 
the  following :  And  the  Church  of  the  Corinthians  held  fast 
to  the  sound  word  until  Primus  who  was  bishop  in  Corinth, 
among  whom  I  conversed  as  I  sailed  to  Rome,  and  I  spent 
no  few  days  with  the  Corinthians,  during  which  we  were  refreshed 
with  the  sound  word.  And  coming  to  Rome,  I  stayed  there 
till  the  time  of  Anicetus,  whose  deacon  was  Eleutherus.  And 
Soter  followed  Anicetus,  after  whom  Eleutherus.  And  in  each 
bishopric  and  in  each  city  things  are  as  the  Law  heralds  and 
the  prophets  and  the  Lord."  Observe  Hegesippus'  expression. 
Everything  is  in  order  in  all  the  bishops'  sees  and  cities  that 
he  has  visited,  because  it  all  agrees  with  what  the  Law  demands 
and  the  prophets  and  the  Lord.  He  does  not  speak  of  the 
New  Testament  books.  The  Law  and  the  Prophets  are  books. 
But  he  does  not  place  other  books  over  against  them  but  simply 
the  Lord,  and  that  is,  what  the  Lord  said. 

Hegesippus  (Eus.  H.  E.  4.  22)  gives  us  further  word  of 
what  happened  in  the  earliest  Church  at  Jerusalem,  and  de- 
scribes the  first  steps  of  unsound  doctrine.  "And  the  same 
[Hegesippus]  describes  the  beginnings  of  the  heresies  of  his 
day  in  these  words:  and  after  James  the  Just  had  died  as 
martyr  with  the  very  same  saying  as  the  Lord," — that  was, 
the :  Father  forgive  them :  for  they  know  not  what  they  do, — 
"again  Simeon  the  son  of  his  uncle  Clopas  was  appointed 
bishop,  whom  all  pressed  forward  as  being  the  second   coubin 


Il6  THE  CANON 

of  the  Lord.  Therefore  they  called  the  Church  a  virgin.  For 
it  was  not  yet  corrupted  with  empty  speeches.  But  Thebouthis 
begins  to  corrupt  it  because  he  was  not  made  bishop,  being  from 
the  seven  heresies  (and  he  was  among  the  people),  from  whom 
was  Simon,  whence  the  Simonians,  and  Cleobios,  whence  the 
Cleobians,  and  Dositheus,  whence  the  Dositheans,  and  Gorthaeus, 
whence  the  Gorathenians,  and  Masbotheus,  whence  the 
Masbotheans.  From  these  the  Menandrianists  and  Marcionists, 
and  Carpocratians  and  Valentinians,  and  Basilidians  and 
Satornilians,  each  separately  and  for  themselves  introduced 
their  own  view.  From  these  [came]  false  Christs,  false  prophets, 
false  apostles,  who  divided  the  unity  of  the  Church  with  corrupt 
words  against  God  and  against  His  Christ." 

No  one  can  say  that  Hegesippus  was  not  awake  to  the  move- 
ments of  the  times.  His  journey  to  Rome  fell  in  between  the 
years  157  and  168,  seeing  that  it  was  under  Anicetus,  but  he 
seems  to  have  remained  there  or  to  have  been  there  again,  in 
case  he  moved  about  among  the  cities  of  the  West,  until  some- 
where between  177  and  190  during  the  time  of  Eleutherus. 
It  was  under  Eleutherus  that  he  wrote  his  Memoirs.  He  is 
said  to  have  died  under  Commodus,  and  that  is  to  be  under- 
stood as  between  the  years  180  and  192.  Eusebius  uses 
Hegesippus  as  a  witness  for  the  condition  of  affairs  in  Corinth 
at  the  time  that  the  letter  of  Clement  was  written,  and  gives 
us  at  the  same  time  a  glimpse  of  the  conditions  of  exchanging 
or  distributing  books  among  the  Churches.  After  referring 
to  Clement,  Eusebius  (H.  E.  3.  16)  says:  "It  is  well  known 
then  that  a  single  letter  of  this  Clement  is  in  our  hands, 
both  great  and  wonderful,  which  is  represented  as  from  the 
Church  of  the  Romans  to  the  Church  of  the  Corinthians, 
there  having  been  just  then  an  uproar  at  Corinth.  We  know 
that  this  letter  was  also  used  publicly  before  the  assembly  in 
very  many  Churches,  not  only  in  old  times,  but  also  in  our 
own  very  day.  And  that  at  the  time  aforesaid  the  things  of 
the  uproar  of  the  Corinthians  were  stirred  up,  Hegesippus  is 
a  sufficient  witness."  Hegesippus  had,  as  we  saw  above,  spent 
some  time  at  Corinth,  and  had  learned,  therefore,  all  about  this 
letter  and  the  conditions  there.  We  cannot  at  all  tell  from 
all  the  stray  fragments  of  Hegesippus'  Memoirs  that  are  before 
us  what  kind  of  a  book  these   Memoirs  were.     They  cannot 


THE  AGE  OF   IREN^US— HEGESIPPUS  II7 

have  been  a  chronologically  disposed  history,  because  we  are 
directly  told  that  the  story  about  the  death  of  James  given 
above  was  in  the  fifth  book,  whereas  James  stood  at  the 
beginning  of  the  Church. 

We  have  given  much  from  Hegesippus  that  does  not  bear 
directly  upon  the  criticism  of  the  canon,  but  which  was  calculated 
to  give  us  insight  into  the  character,  position,  advantages,  and 
information  of  the  man.  It  seems  to  me  to  be  clear  that  few 
men  of  all  that  time  can  have  been  in  so  good  a  position  to  give 
us  in  words  and  without  words  a  notion  of  the  attitude  of  the 
Christians  towards  the  books  of  the  New  Testament.  In  the 
first  place,  Eusebius  (H.  E.  4.  22)  gives  us  a  few  words  about 
Hegesippus :  "  And  he  writes  many  other  things,  part  of  which 
we  have  already  mentioned  above,  putting  them  exactly  where 
they  belonged  in  the  times  of  the  history.  And  he  not  only 
gives  us  some  things  from  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews, 
but  also  from  the  Syrian  and  especially  from  the  Hebrew 
dialect,  showing  that  he  himself  became  a  believer  from  among 
the  Hebrews.  And  he  refers  to  other  things  as  if  from  a 
Jewish  unwritten  tradition.  And  not  only  this  one  [Hegesippus], 
but  also  Irenseus  and  the  whole  chorus  of  the  ancients  called 
the  proverbs  of  Solomon  all  glorious  wisdom.  And  speaking  of 
the  books  called  apocryphal,  he  relates  that  some  of  them  were 
falsely  concocted  in  his  times  by  some  heretics."  Here  we  have 
an  account  of  certain  sources  from  which  Hegesippus  drew. 

He  used  the  Gospel  to  the  Hebrews.  That  is,  of  course, 
the  book  to  which  reference  has  been  so  often  made.  The 
connection  makes  it  quite  clear  that  Eusebius  regards  it  as  a 
book  written  in  a  Semitic  language.  It  is  probably  not  the 
little  collection  of  the  sayings  of  Jesus  that  Matthew  made, 
but  another  book  more  like  a  full  Gospel;  and  it  is  quite 
possible  that  the  name  has  misled  Eusebius,  and  that  the 
Gospel  as  Hegesippus  knew  it  was  a  Greek  Gospel  and  not  in 
the  Aramaic  tongue.  Then  Eusebius  says  that  Hegesippus 
quotes  some  things  from  the  Syrian  and  especially  from  the 
Hebrew  dialect.  What  can  these  two  be  ?  The  Syriac  so  close 
upon  the  Gospel  to  the  Hebrews  might  be  a  Syriac  Gospel,  and 
the  Hebrew  dialect  also  points  to  a  Gospel.  But  I  am  upon  the 
whole  not  incHned  to  think  that  that  is  the  meaning.  The 
sentence  bristles  with   Semitic  wisdom,  and  it  would  not  have 


Il8  THE  CANON 

been  in  the  least  out  of  the  way  for  Eusebius,  the  bishop  of 
Caesarea  in  Palestine,  to  have  had  some  knowledge  of  Syrian  and 
Aramaic.  If  we  tried  to  distinguish  between  the  Syriac  and  the 
Hebrew  dialect,  we  should  be  forced  to  suggest  that  the  Syriac 
was  perhaps  a  North-Syrian  dialect,  say  from  the  district  near 
Aleppo,  and  that  the  Hebrew  dialect,  as  no  one  then  spoke 
Hebrew,  was  the  Aramean  used  at  and  near  Jerusalem,  which 
had  itself  a  century  or  two  before  come  down  from  northern 
Syria.  But  I  do  not  think  for  a  moment  that  Hegesippus  has  in 
view  a  Syrian  or  a  Hebrew  Gospel  in  the  two  latter  expressions. 
Had  he  given  "  some  things  "  from  the  Gospel  according  to  the 
Hebrews  and  some  things  from  a  Syriac  Gospel  and  some  things 
from  a  Hebrew  Gospel,  it  is  scarcely  conceivable  that  he  should 
not  have  given  some  characteristic  traits  from  the  words  and 
deeds  of  Jesus  which  are  not  to  be  found  in  our  Gospels.  And 
it  is  as  little  conceivable  that  a  mass  of  such  material  should 
have  been  passed  in  utter  silence  by  Eusebius,  who  is  ever  on  the 
watch  for  new  things. 

Instead  of  wishing  that  we  had  no  one  knows  what  from 
those  "Gospels,"  we  only  need  to  take  the  matter  up  from 
the  other  end  and  ask  ourselves  what  Eusebius  really  gives  us 
from  Hegesippus.  And  we  may  feel  sure  that  the  things  which 
Eusebius  found  worth  transferring  from  Hegesippus'  pages  to 
his  own  were  at  least  in  part  things  that  he  drew  from  the 
Syrian  and  Hebrew  that  Eusebius  mentions  with  such  impressive- 
ness.  If  there  were  any  Christians  anywhere  who  used  a 
Semitic  dialect  that  could  by  some  play  of  fancy,  according  to 
the  inaccuracy  of  all  these  dialect  designations  in  Semitic 
countries,  be  called  a  Hebrew  dialect,  it  was  the  Christians  in 
southern  Palestine,  the  Christians  in  Jerusalem,  or  those  ex- 
pelled from  Jerusalem  and  living  as  they  could  somewhere  in  that 
neighbourhood.  What  has  Eusebius  drawn  from  Hegesippus 
that  might  be  taken  from  such  a  source?  Precisely  the  story 
of  the  death  of  James.  There  is  "something"  that  may  have 
come  from  the  Syrian  or  the  Hebrew,  let  us  say  from  the 
Aramean  of  Judah.  James  and  his  followers  are  the  Jewish 
Christians  by  way  of  eminence.  But  I  am  actually  going  to  give 
another  long  quotation  from  Hegesippus.  The  story  of  James' 
death  brought  the  tradition  of  the  New  Testament  squarely  down 
to  the  year  7a.     After  James'  death :    "  Straightway  Vespasian 


THE  AGE  OF   IREN^EUS— HEGESIPPUS  II9 

besieges  them."  The  passage  that  I  am  going  to  give  now 
stretches  this  tradition  down  about  to  the  end  of  the  century, 
perhaps  over  into  the  beginning  of  the  second  century  ;  and  this 
is,  again,  a  passage  that  must  have  come  from  Jerusalem,  that 
could  have  come  from  nowhere  else,  and  that,  therefore,  was 
probably  from  the  Hebrew  dialect.  We  shall  see  how  the  meshes 
of  the  net  of  tradition  are  being  woven  more  and  more  securely 
together.  There  will  probably  in  the  end  be  no  place  for  a  book 
to  slip  through  to  get  away  from  the  grasp  of  the  Church.  Before 
I  begin  the  story  from  Hegesippus  I  must  call  attention  to  the 
fact  that  the  persons  to  whom  our  attention  is  first  to  be  called 
are  the  descendants  of  Jude.  The  Epistle  of  Jude  interests  us. 
It  interests  us  to  know  that  down  to  the  second  century  there 
were  men  of  his  family  in  view  and  known. 

Hegesippus  (Eus.  H.  E.  3.  20)  says :  "  And  there  were  still 
left  some  from  the  family  of  the  Lord,  grandsons  of  Jude,  of 
the  one  called  His  brother  according  to  the  flesh,  who  were 
charged  by  hostile  men  with  being  of  the  family  of  David." 
A  moment  before  Eusebius  had  said  that  it  was  some  of  the 
heretics  who  accused  them  of  being  of  the  family  of  David  and 
of  the  family  of  the  Christ.  Hegesippus  continues :  "  These, 
then,  Ivocatus  led  to  the  Emperor  Domitian.  For  he  feared 
the  coming  of  Christ  just  as  Herod  did" — that  points  to  the 
second  chapter  of  Matthew — "and  he  asked  them  if  they  were 
from  David,  and  they  said  Yes.  Then  he  asked  them  what  pos- 
sessions they  had  or  how  much  money  they  were  masters  of." — 
He  clearly  wished  to  know  whether  they  would  be  in  a  position 
to  pay  for  troops  and  to  bribe  people  in  general  to  help  them. — 
"  And  they  both  said  they  only  had  nine  thousand  denars,  half 
belonging  to  each  of  them.  And  they  said,  this  they  had  in 
money,  but  in  the  reckoning  up  of  the  land  they  had  only  thirty- 
nine  acres,  and  that  the  taxes  had  to  come  out  of  that,  and  that 
they  made  their  living  cultivating  the  land  themselves.  Then 
also  they  showed  their  hands,  the  hardness  of  their  body  being 
a  witness  for  their  working  themselves,  and  showing  the  wales 
imprinted  on  their  own  hands  from  the  unceasing  labour.  And 
when  they  were  asked  about  the  Christ  and  His  kingdom,  of 
what  kind  it  would  be  and  where  and  when  it  would  appear, 
that  they  answered,  that  it  was  not  of  the  world  and  not  earthly, 
but  heavenly  and  angelic,  and  that  it  would  be  at  the  end  of  the 


120  THE  CANON 

age,  at  which  time  He  coming  in  glory  will  judge  living  and 
dead,  and  will  give  to  each  one  according  to  his  works.  Upon 
which  Domitian,  not  having  anything  against  them  but  despising 
them  as  poor  people,  let  them  go  free  and  stopped  by  decree  the 
persecution  against  the  Church.  And  that  they  then  dismissed 
became  leaders  of  the  Churches,  on  the  one  hand  as  witnesses  " 
— they  had  stood  before  the  emperor — "  and  on  the  other  hand 
as  from  the  family  of  the  Lord.  And  that  they,  there  being 
peace,  continued  to  live  up  to  the  time  of  Trajan.  This 
Hegesippus  relates." 

"  After  Nero  and  Domitian,  at  the  point  of  which  we  are  now 
searching  out  the  times," — thus  writes  Eusebius  (H.  E.  3.  32), 
— "  it  is  related  that  here  and  there  and  city  by  city  by  reason 
of  uprisings  of  the  common  folk,  the  persecution  was  excited 
against  us,  in  which,  as  we  have  received  word,  Simeon  the  son 
of  Clopas,  whom  we  have  shown  to  have  been  appointed  the 
second  bishop  of  the  Church  in  Jerusalem,  laid  down  his  life 
in  martyrdom.  And  of  this  that  very  same  one  is  a  witness  of 
whom  we  have  before  used  different  statements,  Hegesippus. 
Who  then  telling  about  certain  heretics,  adds  the  relation  that 
therefore  at  this  very  time  enduring  accusation  from  these,  the 
one  named  as  a  Christian  [Simeon]  having  been  tortured  many 
days  and  astonishing  not  only  the  judge  but  also  those  about 
him  in  the  highest  degree,  was  finally  borne  away  almost  with 
the  passion  of  the  Lord.  But  there  is  nothing  like  hearing  the 
author  relating  these  very  things  word  for  word  about  thus : 
Some  of  these,  namely  of  the  heretics,  accused  Simeon  the  son 
of  Clopas  as  being  from  David  and  a  Christian,  and  thus  he 
becomes  a  martyr,  being  one  hundred  and  twenty  years  old, 
while  Trajan  was  emperor  and  Atticus  was  consul." — That  was 
probably  about  the  beginning  of  the  second  century,  perhaps 
around  the  year  104. — Eusebius  continues:  "And  the  same 
[Hegesippus]  says  that  then  also  it  came  to  pass  that  his 
[Simeon's]  accusers,  the  ones  from  the  royal  tribe  of  the  Jews, 
being  sought  for,  were  taken  prisoners  as  being  from  it.  And  by 
a  calculation  anyone  would  say  that  Simeon  also  must  have  been 
one  of  the  personal  seers  and  hearers  of  the  Lord,  using  as  a 
proof  the  length  of  the  time  of  his  life  and  the  fact  that  the  scrip- 
ture of  the  Gospels  makes  mention  of  Mary  the  wife  of  Clopas, 
from  whom  also  above  the  account  showed  that  he  was  born." 


THE  AGE  OF  IREN^US— HEGESIPPUS  121 

"More  than  this  the  same  man  [Hegesippus],  relating  these 
things  about  the  ones  mentioned,  adds  that  until  those  times 
the  Church  remained  a  pure  and  uncorrupted  virgin,  those 
trying  to  corrupt  the  sound  canon  of  the  saving  preaching,  if 
there  were  any  such,  until  then  remaining  concealed  as  in  some 
obscure  darkness.  When  the  holy  chorus  of  the  apostles 
received  a  various  end  of  life,  and  that  generation  passed  by  of 
those  who  had  been  held  worthy  to  hear  the  very  utterances  of 
the  divine  wisdom,  then  the  system  of  the  godless  delusion  took 
its  start,  through  the  deceit  of  the  teachers  teaching  other 
doctrines,  who  also,  inasmuch  as  no  one  of  the  apostles  was 
longer  left,  now  with  uncovered  head  tried  to  herald  abroad  the 
falsely  so-called  knowledge  (Gnosis)  against  the  heralding  of  the 
truth."  The  great  point  of  the  Simeon  story  for  us  is  the  age  of 
Simeon.  He  was  a  hundred  and  twenty  years  old  at  the  time  of 
his  martyrdom.  We  do  not  know  in  what  year  that  was,  save  that 
it  was  between  98  and  117,  and  I  have  suggested  104  because 
of  the  fact  that  an  Attius,  which  is  almost  Atticus,  was  then 
consul.  But  let  us  go  to  the  year  117.  If  Simeon  happened  to 
be  martyred  in  the  last  year  of  Trajan's  reign,  with  his  hundred 
and  twenty  years  he  would  have  been  born  three  years  "  before 
Christ,"  that  is  to  say,  a  single  year  later  than  Jesus.  How  much 
he  must  have  known  of  the  life  of  Jesus  from  the  very  first  and 
how  much  he  must  have  seen  and  heard  of  the  life  of  the 
Christians  between  the  crucifixion  and  the  reign  of  Trajan  ! 

But  to  return  to  Hegesippus :  the  remark  of  Eusebius  about 
the  books  that  are  called  apocryphal  deserves  attention.  It  is 
true  that  Eusebius  gives  no  names  of  books,  and  it  is  possible 
that  Hegesippus  mentioned  no  names.  Yet  when  he  says  that 
Hegesippus  relates  that  some  of  these  were  fabrications  of 
heretics  of  his  own  day,  we  feel  sure  that  with  that  word  the 
genuine  books  of  the  New  Testament  are  placed  for  Hegesippus 
beyond  all  doubt  as  from  the  time  of  the  apostles.  The 
passage  of  Christians  hither  and  thither,  and  the  interchange 
of  thought  and  of  life,  were  far  too  incessant  to  admit  of  the 
successful  fathering  of  books  that  were  not  genuine  upon  the 
apostles.  When  w^e  reflect  upon  Eusebius'  words  about 
Hegesippus  and  the  Hebrew  and  the  Syriac  and  the  Jewish 
tradition,  we  shall  at  once  understand  that  it  is  not  the  intention 
of  Eusebius  to  say  that   Hegesippus   did   not   know  Qur  Ne>v 


122  THE  CANON 

Testament  books.  He  calls  attention  to  the  unknown,  the 
uncommon  in  Hegesippus ;  the  common,  the  every  day  part,  has 
no  special  interest  for  him.  When  we  get  Hegesippus'  five 
books,  we  shall  see  what  he  calls  apocryphal.  As  the  name  of 
Jude  occurred  above,  when  we  read  of  his  grandsons  who  were 
such  plain  everyday  farmers  or  small  peasants,  the  thought  may 
have  arisen,  that  these  grandsons  scarcely  point  to  a  grandfather 
who  could  have  written  the  Epistle  of  Jude.  To  that  is  to  be 
observed  first,  that  we  do  not  with  mathematical  certainty  know 
who  wrote  the  letter ;  second,  that  the  letter  purports  to  be  from 
this  Jude  whose  grandsons  are  alive  at  the  end  of  the  century ; 
third,  that  Jude  might  have  dictated  the  letter  to  a  man  who 
could  write  Greek ;  and  fourth,  that  even  in  this  enlightened 
twentieth  century  there  may  be  found  grandsons  of  facile 
authors  who  are  themselves  not  able  to  write  books.  So  far 
from  it  that  Hegesippus  did  not  know  our  New  Testament  books, 
Hegesippus  will  undoubtedly  have  known  the  mass  of  our  New 
Testament  books.  If  there  were  some  of  them  that  he  had  not 
known  in  Palestine,  he  will  have  become  acquainted  with  them 
at  Corinth  and  surely  at  Rome,  towards  which  all  flowed.  But 
he  probably  knew  the  most  of  them  before  he  travelled  west- 
ward. He  probably  had  the  Scriptures  partly  in  view  when  he 
spoke  or  wrote  of  the  unity  of  the  Church,  only  that  still  for 
him  the  tradition  by  word  of  mouth  seemed  to  be  the  weighty 
thing. 

If  we  try  to  gather  together  the  fragments  of  knowledge  that 
Eusebius'  words  about  Hegesippus  and  out  of  Hegesippus'  five 
books  of  Memoirs  have  given  us,  we  shall  find  that  the  harvest 
is  large,  although  not  yet  in  every  point  precise.  Dying  between 
1 80  and  192,  we  may  regard  it  as  likely  that  Hegesippus  had 
come  to  be  seventy  years  old  or  thereabouts,  and  had  been  born 
therefore  about  no;  were  he  sixty  years  old  he  would  have 
been  born  about  120.  Taking  the  earlier  date  with  the  state- 
ments as  to  his  reaching  Rome,  which  do  not  precisely  agree 
with  each  other,  we  may  conjecture  that  he  came  thither  about 
160,  being  fifty  years  of  age.  A  certain  ripeness  of  experience 
might  be  looked  for  from  a  man  who  set  out  to  take  a  general 
account  of  stock  in  the  Christian  Church.  A  very  young  man 
would  not  be  likely  to  conceive  the  thought  of  searching 
through  the  lands  for   correct  teaching  and  for  due  tradition. 


THE  AGE  OF   IREN^EUS— TATIAN  1 23 

And  the  Churches  would  easily  have  viewed  with  suspicion  a 
young  man  who  came  to  them  upon  an  errand  of  that  kind. 
Hegesippus  may  well  have  begun  his  journey  then  as  a  man 
high  up  in  the  forties.  Regarding  it  as  certain  that  before 
Hegesippus  reached  Corinth  and  Rome  the  mass  of  our  New 
Testament  books  were  in  common  use  in  those  two  cities,  we 
look  upon  the  absence  of  any  note  of  surprise  or  of  dissent 
from  him  in  respect  to  these  books  as  a  sign  that  he  was 
accustomed  to  the  use  of  the  same  books.  Eusebius  has  with 
the  greatest  good  sense  not  thought  it  necessary  to  give  indefinite 
proofs  for  the  generally  accepted  books,  seeing  that  with  his 
clear  view  of  the  early  history  of  Christianity  he  felt  sure  that 
these  books  had  from  the  first  been  in  the  undisturbed  posses- 
sion of  the  members  of  the  great  Churches.  Had  he  found  in 
Hegesippus  signs  of  dissent  from  the  books  used  by  the  Church, 
he  would  have  told  us  of  it.  We  may  rely  upon  that.  We  have 
no  reason  thus  far  to  think  that  Eusebius  did  not  play  fair  with 
his  sources. 

If  Hegesippus  in  all  probability  came  from  Palestine,  Tatian 
came  from  Assyria.  We  do  not  know  very  much  about  him 
save  that  he  was  brought  up  as  a  Greek,  and  that  he  eagerly 
studied  the  various  philosophies,  and  was  initiated  into  various 
of  the  heathen  mysteries.  Perhaps  Syrian  or  Armenian  manu- 
scripts will  some  day  give  us  more.  He  went  to  the  West,  to 
Rome,  as  a  heathen.  While  there,  probably  under  the  influence 
of  Justin  Martyr,  he  became  a  Christian.  He  was  very  much 
devoted  then  to  his  teacher  Justin,  who  died  perhaps  in  the 
year  165.  Tatian  attributes  his  conversion  to  Christianity  to 
writings.  This  may  well  be  a  figure  of  speech,  in  so  far  as  he 
may  have  been  led  by  the  exhortations  of  Christians  to  the 
Scriptures.  But  it  is  interesting  to  see  him  put  the  Scriptures 
in  that  place.  He  tells  in  his  Speech  to  the  Greeks,  that  is  to 
say  to  the  heathen,  how  hollow  and  foul  he  had  found  their 
philosophy  and  their  religious  mysteries  to  be.  And  then  (ch.  29) 
he  says  :  "  Coming  back  to  myself,  I  sought  around  in  what  way 
I  might  be  able  to  find  out  that  which  is  true.  And  while  I 
was  turning  over  in  my  mind  the  most  earnest  questions,  it  so 
fell  out  that  I  lighted  upon  certain  barbaric  writings," — everything 
is  barbaric  that  is  not  Greek, — "more  ancient  in  comparison 
with  the  opinions  of  the  Greeks,  and  more  divine  in  comparison 


124  THE  CANON 

with  their  error.  And  it  came  to  pass  that  I  was  persuaded  by 
these  books  because  of  the  modesty  of  the  way  of  writing  and 
the  artlessness  of  those  who  spoke  and  the  comprehensibiHty  of 
the  making  of  all  things  and  the  foretelling  of  things  to  come 
and  the  propriety  of  the  precepts  and  the  oneness  of  the  rule 
over  all  things.  And  my  soul  being  thus  taught  of  God,  I 
understood  that  those  things  (the  heathen  things)  had  the  form 
of  condemnation,  whereas  these  things  do  away  with  the  servitude 
in  the  world  and  free  us  from  many  rulers  and  from  ten  thousand 
tyrants,  and  give  us  not  what  we  had  not  received,  but  what, 
having  received  under  the  error,  we  were  prevented  from 
keeping."  Those  books  were  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament 
certainly ;  possibly  he  also  had  the  Gospels  in  view. 

Tatian  was  not  one  of  the  men  who  go  half-way.  He  had 
been  much  displeased  by  the  looseness  and  corruption  that  he 
had  found  everywhere  in  heathenism,  and  he  was  eager  to  go  to 
the  greatest  perfection  possible  in  Christianity.  Under  Justin  he 
remained  a  member  of  the  Church.  The  heathen  philosopher 
Crescens  attacked  both  Justin  and  Tatian.  After  Justin's  death 
Tatian  taught  in  Justin's  place.  It  may  have  been  about  the 
year  172  or  173  that  he  finally  broke  off  his  more  direct  connec- 
tion with  the  Church.  Some  say  that  he  never  completely  broke 
away  from  it.  At  any  rate  he  went  back  to  the  East  and  became 
a  leader — to  speak  in  modern  terms — of  a  monastic  body.  That 
is  to  say,  he  did  away  with  marriage  and  with  eating  flesh  and 
with  drinking  wine.  But  there  were  then  no  monks.  These 
people  were  Selfmasters.  One  thing  that  he  did  strikes  directly 
into  our  criticism,  and  goes  very  far  to  prove  the  many  claims 
I  have  made  to  the  continued  unquestioned  existence  and  use 
of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  in  the  Church  up  to  this 
date.  For  Tatian  made  a  Harmony  of  the  Gospels.  Now  what 
Gospels  did  he  use?  The  Gospel  to  the  Hebrews,  or  a  Syriac  or 
a  Hebrew  Gospel  ?  The  whole  subject  is  still  somewhat  lacking 
in  clearness.  But  Tatian  appears  to  have  made  his  Harmony 
in  Greek.  That  he  made  it  in  Greek  fits  also  well  with  the 
name  which  he  himself  appears  to  have  given  the  work.  He 
called  it  the  Through  Four,  which  is  a  name  taken  directly 
from  the  four  Gospels.  The  Greek  name  is  Diatessaron.  But 
what  four  Gospels  did  he  use?  Our  four  Gospels.  The  four 
Gospels  of  the  Church,     The  only  one  of  the  four  that  anyone 


THE  AGE  OF  IREN^US— TATIAN  1 25 

would  have  been  inclined  to  have  doubts  about,  would  have 
been  the  Gospel  of  John,  and  Tatian  began  precisely  with 
verses  from  that  Gospel. 

He  appears  to  have  known  well  pretty  much  all  our  New 
Testament  books,  and  I  affirm  that  an  educated  Christian  at 
Rome  at  that  time  could  not  help  knowing  them.  Of  course, 
Tatian  could  not  go  into  scripture  quotations  out  of  either  Testa- 
ment in  his  Speech  to  the  Greeks.  He  would  not  have  found 
much  in  them  of  the  heathen  systems  and  gods  that  he  holds  up 
before  their  eyes  in  derision  and  scorn.  He  certainly  used  many 
of  the  Epistles  of  Paul.  He  is  said  to  have  rejected  the 
Epistles  to  Timothy,  probably  because  of  the  advice  to  take  a 
little  wine.     He  insisted  upon  it,  however,  that  Titus  was  genuine. 

Eusebius  (H.  E.  4.  29)  gives  from  Irenaeus  some  account  of 
the  group  of  heretics  of  which  Tatian  became  one,  and  speaks 
at  the  same  time  hardly  of  Tatian,  as  became  a  good  orthodox 
man  who  was  the  pink  of  propriety  and  who  attacked  by  reason 
of  office  all  heretics.  I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  Irenaeus  was 
a  bad  man.  But  he  was  a  heresy  hunter.  He  says  :  "  From 
(coming  from)  Satorninus  and  Marcion  those  called  Selfmasters 
preached  no  marriage,  setting  aside  the  ancient  creation  of  God, 
and  calmly  denouncing  the  making  of  male  and  female  for  the 
generation  of  men.  And  they  introduced  continence  on  the 
part  of  those  among  them  whom  they  called  the  full-souled 
ones,  displeasing  God  who  made  all  things.  And  they  deny 
the  salvation  which  is  from  the  first  Creator.  And  this  now 
was  conceived  by  them,  a  certain  Tatian  first  leading  in  this 
blasphemy,  who  having  been  a  hearer  of  Justin's,  so  long  as  he 
was  with  him  brought  nothing  of  this  kind  to  the  light,  but 
after  his  martyrdom  leaving  the  Church,  made  overweening  with 
the  notion  of  being  a  teacher  and  puffed  up  at  the  thought  of 
being  different  from  the  others,  he  grounded  a  special  kind  of 
school,  mythologising  about  certain  unseen  eons  like  those  from 
Valentinus,  and  proclaiming  that  marriage  was  corruption  and 
whoredom,  almost  like  Marcion  and  Satorninus,  and  making  a 
proof  from  the  salvation  of  Adam  by  himself.  This  much  then 
from  Irenaeus.  A  little  later  a  certain  Severus,  laying  hold  of 
the  name  of  the  aforesaid  heresy,  became  the  cause  for  those 
who  started  from  it  of  the  name  drawn  from  him  of  Severians. 
These,  then,  use  the  Law  and  the  Prophets  and  the  Gospels, 


126  THE  CANON 

interpreting  in  their  own  way  the  thoughts  of  the  sacred  writings. 
And  blaspheming  Paul  the  apostle,  they  do  away  with  his  Epistles ; 
nor  do  they  receive  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  Their  former 
leader,  Tatian,  putting  together  a  certain  connection  and  collec- 
tion, I  do  not  know  how,  of  the  Gospels,  attached  to  it  the 
name  Diatessaron,  which  also  still  now  is  in  the  hands  of 
some.  And  they  say  that  he  dared  to  change  some  of  the 
sayings  of  the  apostle,  as  correcting  the  syntax  of  their  ex- 
pression." 

Eusebius  then  tells  us  that  Tatian  wrote  a  great  deal,  and 
he  praises  his  Speech  to  the  Greeks,  which  deduces  all  the 
wisdom  of  the  Greeks  from  Moses  and  the  prophets.  In  all 
this  account  from  Irenaeus  and  Eusebius  we  see  the  spirit 
which  at  once  accuses  a  man,  even  one  who  takes  up  an  ascetic 
thought,  of  bad  motives,  the  spirit  which  has  in  every  age 
disgraced  Christianity.  The  combination  of  the  Law  and  the 
Prophets  and  the  Gospels  is  striking.  That  the  Severians 
interpreted  in  their  own  way  was  a  matter  of  course.  Neither 
Irenaeus  nor  Eusebius  did  anything  else.  But  observe  the  fact 
that  these  people  do  away  with  Paul's  Epistles.  That  can  have 
only  one  single  sense,  and  that  is,  that  the  Church  all  around 
and  for  long  years  before  this  time,  let  us  say  it  up  and  down 
since  the  days  of  Paul  had  treasured  his  Epistles.  It  is  almost 
worth  a  mild  heresy  to  get  in  this  negative  way  the  confirmation 
of  what  we  have  all  along  insisted  upon.  These  Epistles  of 
Paul  were  not  just  at  this  time  coming  into  use,  and  these 
Severians  did  not  merely  say :  "  No !  we  do  not  agree  with  it. 
We  shall  not  accept  these  Epistles."  The  Epistles  were  there 
long  before  the  Severians  were,  just  as  the  Epistle  of  James 
was  there  long  before  Luther  called  it  "a  straw  letter."  And 
it  is  very  good,  too,  that  Eusebius  tells  us  that  they  did  not 
receive  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  That  book  of  Acts  was 
there,  too,  years  before.  But  their  rejection  of  it  makes  its 
presence  visible  again  precisely  here. 

Eusebius'  statement  that  Tatian  was  charged  with  changing 
some  of  the  sayings  of  the  apostle  as  if  he  were  bettering  the 
syntax,  needs  looking  at.  In  the  first  place,  the  apostle  is,  of 
course,  Paul.  In  the  second  century  "the  apostle"  is  pretty 
much  always  Paul.  In  the  next  place,  if  Tatian  really  did  try  to 
Improve  the  Greek  of  some  of  Paul's  wild  sentences,  it  would  not 


THE  AGE  OF   IREN^US— TATIAN  1 27 

be  very  strange,  and  it  would  agree  with  the  work  which  not  at 
all  unorthodox  Alexandrian  grammarians  are  suspected  of  having 
done  at  a  later  date.  But,  in  the  third  place,  it  is  in  reality  quite 
likely  that  the  good  people  who  spread  this  accusation  were  people 
who  were  not  enough  versed  in  the  history  and  condition  of  the 
text  of  the  New  Testament.  It  is  quite  possible  that  what 
they  thought  were  changed,  corrected  sentences,  were  simply 
manuscripts  with  other  readings,  or  simply  signs  that  Tatian 
had  used  manuscripts  with  other  readings.  And  we  may  further 
add  that  the  readings  which  Tatian  had  may  just  as  well  here 
and  there,  or  even  in  general,  have  been  better  readings  than 
the  ones  that  his  opponents  supposed  to  be  the  right  readings. 
These  are  the  theoretical  possibilities.  What  the  precise  state 
of  the  case  was,  we  could  only  tell  by  receiving  the  two  sets  of 
readings. 

If  we  remember  that  books  were  at  that  time  rolls,  and  that 
the  four  Gospels  will  have  been  four  rolls,  which  must  have  been 
both  dear  and  bulky  and  troublesome  to  compare  with  each 
other  passage  for  passage,  it  will  be  easy  to  see  that  Tatian's 
condensing  of  the  four  Gospels  into  one  convenient  Harmony  in 
one  book  must  have  met  what  a  bookseller  with  modern  views 
would  call  a  pressing  need  of  the  day.  The  success  of  the  book 
showed  that  the  Church  appreciated  the  work.  It  was  translated 
into  Syriac,  supposing  that  we  are  right  in  assuming  that  it  was 
originally  Greek,  and  it  passed  in  some  shape  or  other,  or  much 
misshapen,  into  other  languages.  Now  a  Greek  bishop  about 
the  middle  of  the  fifth  century  gives  us  a  view  of  the  way  in 
which  this  book  had  by  that  time  come  into  vogue  in  his  parts. 
It  is  Theodoret,  who  became  bishop  of  Cyrus  on  the  Euphrates 
in  Upper  Syria  m  the  year  423.  He  writes  (Haer.  Fab.  i.  20) : 
"And  Tatian  the  Syrian  became  at  first  a  sophist," — that 
is  Theodoret's  short  way  of  giving  a  heretic  a  not  very  nice 
title,  and  getting  round  the  fact  of  the  wide  philosophical  and 
heathen  religious  researches  of  Tatian, — "and  thereafter  was  a 
pupil  of  the  divine  Justin  the  rpartyr.  This  one  also  put 
together  the  Gospel  called  Diatessaron,  not  only  cutting  away 
the  genealogies,  but  also  the  other  things  so  far  as  they  show 
that  the  Lord  was  born  from  the  seed  of  David  after  the  flesh. 
And  not  only  the  people  of  his  society  used  this,  but  also  those 
who  follow  the  apostolical  dogmas,  not  having  known  the  evil 


128  THE  CANON 

tendency  of  the  composition,  but  using  it  in  simplicity  as  a  short 
book.  And  I  found  more  than  two  hundred  such  books  held 
in  honour  in  the  Churches  among  us,  and  gathering  them  all 
together  I  put  them  aside,  and  introduced  instead  of  them  the 
Gospels  of  the  four  evangelists." 

Long  after  that  time  copies  of  the  book  itself  and  of  com- 
mentaries on  it  were  found  in  some  places.  We  should  be  glad 
if  we  could  find  a  genuine  copy  of  it  to-day.  From  Theodoret's 
description  it  is  perfectly  clear  that  only  our  four  Gospels  were 
used  in  the  Diatessaron.  He  would  have  pounced  like  a  vulture 
on  any  sign  of  an  apocryphal  Gospel  in  it.  We  have  another 
reference  to  this  Diatessaron  from  the  Syrian  side  of  Syria, 
Theodoret  having  given  us  the  Greek  side.  Somewhere  about  the 
middle  of  the  third  century  it  is  likely  that  the  apocryphal  book 
called  the  Teaching  of  Addai  was  written,  and  perhaps  in  or 
near  Edessa.  This  book  says  that  the  early  Christians  in  Edessa 
heard  the  Old  Testament  read,  and  with  it  "  the  New  [Testament] 
of  the  Diatessaron."  We  know  further  from  Dionysius  Bar 
Salibi,  who  wrote  near  the  close  of  the  twelfth  century,  that 
Ephraem  the  Syrian,  a  deacon  in  Edessa,  who  died  in  the 
year  373,  wrote  a  commentary  on  the  Diatessaron,  parts  of 
which  commentary  we  now  have  from  an  Armenian  translation. 
We  also  have  an  Arabic  translation  from  a  Syriac  text ;  but  this 
and  a  Latin  form  especially  are  not  accurate  reproductions  of 
the  original,  the  Latin  being  not  in  the  least  from  the  real  text 
of  the  Diatessaron.  Tatian's  book  did  a  long  service,  and  will 
certainly  not  have  corrupted  the  Christianity  of  any  reader, 
much  as  Theodoret  was  exercised  about  its  use  in  the  Churches 
near  him. 

Tatian  has  placed  before  our  view  a  man  who  grew  up  a 
heathen,  affording  a  contrast  to  Hegesippus,  who  appears  to 
have  been  of  Jewish  descent.  Like  Hegesippus  he  was  a  man 
of  travel,  and  like  him  he  visited  Rome.  Hegesippus  had  the 
practical  unity  of  the  Church  in  view.  Tatian  regarded  purity 
as  an  aim  that  preceded  unity.  His  heretical  ideas  have  in  no 
way  injured  or  lessened  his  value  for  our  criticism.  He  had  as 
a  good  orthodox  Christian  the  most  of  our  books,  and  he  only 
made  their  existence  the  more  clear  when  he  as  a  heretic 
discarded  some  things  that  he  had  before  used.  He  holds  an 
altogether  unique  position  in  the  history  of  the  New  Testament. 


THE  AGE  OF  IREN^US— MURATORIAN   FRAGMENT        1 29 

Aside  from  his  Diatessaron,  no  other  book  of  such  importance 
ever  gained  such  a  foothold  in  the  Christian  Church.  One 
point  should  not  be  overlooked,  namely,  the  fact  that  Tatian 
did  not  hesitate  to  pare  away  from  the  New  Testament  the 
parts  which  he  did  not  consider  good.  We  have  no  information 
as  to  whether  in  this  he  was  led  by  the  influence  of  Marcion  or 
not.  The  likeness  of  some  of  the  views  attributed  to  him  to 
views  of  Marcion's  would  make  Marcion's  exabiple  seem  all  the 
more  probable.  Should  any  one,  however,  be  desirous  of  con- 
cluding from  Tatian's  treatment  of  the  Gospels  that  the  Church 
then,  the  Church  of  his  day,  did  not  hold  the  Gospels  to  be  equal 
to  the  divine  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament,  we  have  only  to 
recall  the  two  facts,  first  that  a  heretic  freed  himself  from  the 
opinion  of  the  Church,  and  second  that  Tatian  as  well  as  Marcion 
seems  to  have  thought  the  God  of  the  Old  Testament  creation 
to  be  an  inferior  God.  The  trend  of  these  two  facts  goes 
nevertheless  to  show  that  the  whole  question  of  religious,  of 
sacred  books  was  not  regarded  as  one  of  very  strict  importance, 
or  as  one  that  had  been  definitely  and  once  for  all  settled,  even 
for  the  Old  Testament. 

We  now  come  to  a  remarkable  fragment  of  an  old  book  that 
is  extremely  valuable  for  the  criticism  of  the  canon.  It  is  called 
the  Muratonan  fragment,  after  the  name  of  the  Italian  historian 
and  librarian  Muratori  who  first  published  it.  Muratori  found 
the  fragment  in  the  Ambrosian  Library  at  Milan.  He  seems  to 
have  thought  that  it  would  not  be  prudent  to  publish  it  as  a 
fragment  that  bore  upon  the  canon,  seeing  that  its  statements 
are  sometimes  peculiar.  He  therefore  printed  it  as  a  specimen 
of  the  very  careless  way  in  which  the  scribes  in  the  Middle  Ages 
copied  manuscripts.  The  actual  writing  is  of  the  eighth  or 
perhaps  even  of  the  seventh  century,  but  the  contents  are 
several  centuries  older.  It  is  sometimes  thought  to  be  of  the 
third  century.  I  still  incline  to  date  it  about  170.  It  is  written 
in  Latin.  Some  have  regarded  it  as  a  translation  from  the 
Greek.  Should  it  have  been  written  at  Rome  at  the  date 
named,  it  would  presumably  have  been  written  in  Greek,  for 
Greek  continued  to  be  the  Christian  literary  language  at  Rome 
until  well  into  the  third  century.  But  this  argument  is  not  of 
great  weight,  in  so  far  as  we  do  not  know  what  the  extent  of  the 
book  or  the  essay  was  to  which  the  fragment  belonged.  Caius 
9 


I30  THE  CANON 

and  Papias  and  Hegesippus  have  been  named  by  different 
scholars  as  the  probable  authors.  We  have  no  clue  whatever  to 
the  name  of  the  writer,  and  as  little  to  the  character  of  the  book 
from  which  it  was  drawn.  It  may  have  been  an  apologetical 
book.  In  this  fragment,  were  it  complete,  we  should  have  the 
earliest  known  list  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  although 
we  do  not  find  this  designation  in  it.  We  cannot  doubt  that 
the  full  copy  contained  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  of 
which,  as  we  have  already  seen,  Melito  had  drawn  up  a  list. 

The  beginning  of  the  list  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament 
is  lost.  It  is,  however,  to  be  presupposed  that  the  Gospel 
according  to  Matthew  was  named  first,  and  that  the  first  of  the 
eighty-five  lines  preserved  refers  to  Mark.  The  mutilated 
sentence  probably  said  that  Mark  gave  the  account  of  tradition 
which  Peter  related  to  him  and  then,  referring  to  the  presence 
of  Mark  after  the  crucifixion,  said  that,  nevertheless,  Mark  put 
down  for  himself  the  narrative  of  the  occurrences  which  he 
himself  saw  as  an  eye-witness.  It  should  not,  it  seems  to  me, 
be  thought  that  Mark,  who  lived  at  Jerusalem,  had  positively 
not  seen  Jesus  before  the  crucifixion.  He  was  certainly  a  young 
man,  perhaps  very  young,  and  his  merely  seeing  Jesus  and 
hearing  Him  speak  in  passing  would  not  be  a  thing  of  which  the 
least  notice  would  have  been  taken  at  that  time.  There  were 
many  men  of  mature  age  who  had  had  much  intercourse  with 
Jesus.  It  did  not  in  the  least  lie  in  the  habit  of  the  time  and 
the  land  to  ask  around  exactly  and  to  chronicle  carefully  the 
name  of  every  child  that  had  been  in  the  presence  of  Jesus. 
That  there  were  four  Gospels,  and  only  four,  is  clear  then  when 
we  find  in  the  second  line  that  Luke  is  given  as  the  third.  And 
there  is  not  a  shadow  of  a  reason  for  thinking  that  the  first 
and  second  were  anything  but  Matthew  and  Mark.  Luke  is 
designated  as  a  physician,  and  then  described  as  one  who  after 
the  ascension  was  attached  to  Paul  as  a  student  of  the  law.  That 
does  not  mean  that  Luke  gave  up  medicine  and  turned  law 
student  under  Paul,  as  Paul  had  studied  under  Gamaliel.  It 
points  to  the  need  that  Luke  as  a  heathen  by  birth  had  to  take 
up  the  study  of  the  Old  Testament.  The  fragment  seems  to 
allude  to  the  fact,  which  every  one  feels,  that  Luke  was  more 
independent  as  an  author  than  Mark  was.  It  agrees  that  he  did 
not  see  the  Lord  in  the  flesh.     It  adds,  however,  that  he  wrote 


THE  AGE  OF  IREN^US— MURATORIAN   FRAGMENT        I31 

in  his  own  name  and  as  well  as  he  could  follow  the  events,  and 
that  he  began  with  the  birth  of  John. 

The  account  of  the  way  in  which  John  came  to  write  his 
Gospel  is  interesting.  The  fellow-disciples  of  John  and  his 
bishops — one  might  think  of  the  bishops  in  Asia  near  Ephesus 
— appear  as  having  urged  him  to  write  a  Gospel.  John  replied 
to  them  :  "  Fast  with  me  three  days  from  to-day  on,  and  let  us 
tell  each  other  whatever  may  be  revealed  to  each  one.  That 
same  night  it  was  revealed  to  Andrew  the  apostle  that  John 
should  write  everything  in  his  own  name,  and  that  they  all 
should  look  his  work  through."  That  is  a  pretty  story,  but  is 
in  all  probability  a  late  invention.  Then  the  author  tells  us  that 
though  the  Gospels  have  each  an  own  principle,  as  going  forth 
Irom  different  authors,  they  nevertheless  present  no  differences 
for  faith,  since  they  all  proceed  from  the  one  chief  spirit,  relating 
the  birth,  the  passion,  the  resurrection,  the  conversation  with 
His  disciples,  and  His  double  coming,  the  first  time  in  humility 
despised,  which  is  past,  the  second  time  glorious  in  royal  power, 
which  is  to  come.  Marcion  rejected  all  the  Gospels  but  Luke, 
and  attested  thereby  the  four  of  the  Church.  Tatian  witnessed 
to  the  four  in  his  Harmony.  And  this  Muratorian  fragment  has 
the  four  Gospels.  They  have  been  together  for  years  before  we 
have  happened  to  receive  these  glimpses  of  the  state  of  the  case. 
They  probably  were  brought  together  very  soon  after,  it  may  be 
immediately  after,  the  writing  of  the  Gospel  according  to  John. 

The  author  of  the  fragment  continues  by  observing  that  it  is 
then  not  strange  that  "  John  gives  the  details  so  firmly  also  in  his 
Epistle,  saying :  What  we  ourselves  have  seen  with  our  eyes  and 
heard  with  our  ears  and  touched  with  our  hands,  these  things  we 
have  written  to  you.  For  he  thus  declares  himself  to  be  not  only 
a  seer  but  also  a  hearer,  and  also  a  writer  of  all  the  wonderful 
things  of  the  Lord  in  order."  In  these  words  we  have,  then,  an 
early  instance  of  the  way  in  which  the  First  Epistle  of  John  was 
closely  bound  to  the  Gospel  in  tradition.  The  Second  and  the 
Third  Epistles  may  very  well  have  still  been  lying  quietly  in  the 
hands  of  the  private  persons  who  first  received  them,  at  the  time 
at  which  the  custom  of  joining  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Gospel  was 
started.  Next  follows  the  book  of  Acts,  which  the  author  of  the 
fragment,  without  the  least  propriety  but  in  accordance  with 
the  carelessness   of  early  times  and   in  accordance  with  other 


132  THE  CANON 

Christians,  calls  the  Acts  of  all  the  Apostles.  He  says  that  they 
are  written  in  one  book.  How  many  books  would  the  acts  of 
all  of  the  apostles  have  filled?  How  much  there  must  have 
been  to  tell  about  Peter  and  about  John  !  Here  the  author 
thinks  that  Luke  had  personal  knowledge  of  the  details.  He 
agrees  that  Luke  omits  Peter's  death  and  Paul's  journey  to 
Spain,  and  we  may  conjecture  that  it  is  because  he  was  not 
present  at  either  event.  As  for  Paul's  Epistles,  they  themselves 
declare  to  those  who  wish  to  know  it  from  what  place  and  for 
what  reason  they  were  written  :  "  First  of  all  to  the  Corinthians 
forbidding  the  heresy  of  schism,  then  second  to  the  Galatians 
about  circumcision,  but  to  the  Romans  he  wrote  more  at  length, 
declaring  the  sequence  of  the  Scriptures,  and  that  their  head 
and  chief  is  Christ.  About  these  things  we  must  say  more. 
Inasmuch  as  the  blessed  Apostle  Paul,  following  the  order  of  his 
predecessor  John,  writes  by  name  only  to  seven  Churches  in  the 
following  order :  to  the  Corinthians  first,  to  the  Ephesians 
second,  to  the  Philippians  third,  to  the  Colossians  fourth,  to 
the  Galatians  fifth,  to  the  Thessalonians  sixth,  to  the  Romans 
seventh.  But  to  the  Corinthians  and  Thessalonians  for  reproof 
he  writes  a  second  time.  Nevertheless  it  is  made  known  that 
the  one  Church  is  diffused  through  the  whole  round  of  the  earth. 
And  John,  although  he  writes  in  the  Revelation  to  seven  Churches, 
notwithstanding  speaks  to  all.  But  one  to  Philemon  and  one 
to  Titus  and  two  to  Timothy  for  love  and  affection.  Yet  they 
are  sacred  to  the  catholic  Church  in  the  regulation  of  Church 
discipline."  The  way  in  which  that  remark  is  added,  looks 
almost  as  if  the  author  had  in  mind  some  people  who  did  not 
accept  or  like  these  Epistles  to  the  separate  persons. 

Then  the  fragment  alludes  to  two  Epistles  that  are  not  among 
ours  :  "There  is  also  an  Epistle  to  the  Laodiceans,  another  to  the 
Alexandrians  forged  in  Paul's  name  for  the  heresy  of  Marcion, 
and  many  others  which  cannot  be  received  in  the  catholic 
Church,  for  it  is  not  fitting  to  mingle  gall  with  honey.  The 
Epistle  of  Jude  and  two  with  the  name  of  John  are  held  in 
honour  in  the  catholic  Church,  and  Wisdom  written  by  the 
friends  of  Solomon  to  his  honour."  The  way  in  which  these 
two  small  Epistles  of  John  are  named  seems  odd.  The  author 
alludes  to  them  almost  hesitatingly.  Or  is  it  only  because  they 
are  so  very  short  ?     Two  Revelations  are  known  to  this  writer. 


THE  AGE  OF  IREN^US— DIONYSIUS   OF   CORINTH  1 33 

but  the  second  is  of  questioned  acceptance :  "  The  Revelation 
of  John  and  of  Peter  only  we  acknowledge,  which  (I  think  this 
applies  only  to  Peter's  Revelation)  some  of  us  do  not  think 
should  be  read  in  church." 

At  this  last  sentence  our  thoughts  must  turn  back  to  the 
discussion  of  the  reading  in  church,  and  the  words  that  follow 
will  bear  upon  the  same  point.  They  refer  to  that  book  of 
Hermas  of  which  we  spoke  above :  "  The  Pastor,  however, 
Hermas  wrote  lately  in  our  day  in  the  city  of  Rome,  his  brother 
Pius  the  bishop  being  seated  in  the  chair  of  the  Roman  Church. 
And  therefore  it  is  fitting  that  it  be  read.  But  to  the  end  of 
time  it  cannot  be  read  publicly  in  the  church  before  the  people 
either  among  the  finished  number  of  the  prophets  or  among 
the  apostles."  There  we  have  a  clear  distinction,  I  think,  be- 
tween the  books  that  are :  Man  to  Men,  and  those  that  are : 
God  to  Men.  The  fragment  closes  with  references  to  heretical 
books.  The  names  are  partly  so  much  corrupted  that  we 
cannot  tell  just  what  they  are  :  "  But  of  Arsinous  or  Valentinus 
or  Miltiades  we  receive  nothing  at  all.  Who  also  wrote  a  new 
book  of  Psalms  for  Marcion,  along  with  Basilides,  Assianos  the 
founder  of  the  Cataphrygians."  That  is  a  rich  fragment  in  spite 
of  all  its  defects.  We  have  the  four  Gospels,  Acts,  the  Epistles 
of  Paul,  the  Epistles  of  John,  Jude,  the  Revelation.  So  far  as 
the  fragment  goes,  it  brings  neither  James  nor  the  Epistles  of 
Peter  nor  Hebrews.  Of  course,  in  the  case  of  a  copyist  who 
was  so  extremely  careless,  there  remains  the  possibility  that  in 
some  place  a  line  or  several  lines  have  been  omitted.  These 
Epistles  are,  however.  Epistles  that  would  be  likely  at  first  to  be 
read  more  in  the  East  than  in  the  West.  But  we  have  seen  that 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  was  known  at  Rome  as  early  as 
about  95.  There  may  have  been  some  special  reason  for  its 
omission  in  this  fragment.  Perhaps  the  author  of  the  fragment 
thought,  as  TertuUian  did,  that  Hebrews  was  written  by 
Barnabas,  and  he  may  have  not  been  inclined  to  put  it  into 
the  list  on  that  account. 

We  have  thus  far  in  this  period  touched  Palestine,  Syria,  and 
Assyria,  and  ever  again  Rome.  Now  we  must  turn  to  Corinth, 
and  to  the  Bishop  Dionysius  of  that  city.  Dionysius  was  in 
one  respect  like  the  Apostle  Paul  and  like  Ignatius,  namely,  in 
writing  letters  to  the  Churches.     He  wrote  to  the  Christians  of 


134  THE  CANON 

the  Churches,  not  to  the  bishops.  He  was  probably  bishop  at 
the  time  of  Justin's  martyrdom,  perhaps  in  the  year  165,  and  it 
is  Hkely  that  he  died  before  198.  He  was  perhaps  the  successor 
of  Primus  whom  Hegesippus  mentions.  He  must  have  been  a 
man  of  great  note,  since  the  brethren  demanded  that  he  write  to 
them.  We  gain  from  the  few  words  about  him  and  from  his  pen, 
that  Eusebius  (H.  E.  4.  23)  has  preserved  for  us,  quite  a  picture  of 
the  Churches  of  his  day  in  his  neighbourhood.  He  names  several 
bishops,  Palmas  in  Pontus,  Philip  in  Crete,  Pinytus  in  Crete, 
Soter  at  Rome,  Puplius  and  his  successor  Quadratus  at  Athens. 
We  know  of  seven  of  his  letters  :  to  the  Lacedaemonians,  to  the 
Athenians,  to  the  Nicomedians,  to  the  Gortynians,  to  the 
Amastrians,  to  the  Cnossians  (Cnossos  was  a  little  east  of  Candia 
on  the  island  of  Crete ;  its  position  was  settled  by  Arthur 
John  Evans  and  his  friends  in  1900),  and  to  the  Romans. 
Eusebius  gives  a  short  characteristic  description  of  his  letters, 
which  Eusebius  calls  "  catholic  letters  to  the  Churches,"  as  if  he 
thought  of  the  Catholic  Epistles  in  the  New  Testament.  He 
calls  the  letter  to  the  Lacedaemonians  a  catechetical  letter  of 
orthodoxy,  and  a  reminder  of  peace  and  unity.  The  letter  to 
the  Athenians  is  an  awakening  letter  for  faith  and  for  the 
manner  of  life  taught  in  the  Gospel,  and  he  reproves  those  who 
forget  that  life,  and  points  to  the  example  of  their  Bishop 
Puplius  who  became  a  martyr  in  the  persecutions  then.  He 
also  praises  the  zeal  and  chronicles  the  success  of  the  Bishop 
Quadratus  who  followed  Puplius.  Thereat  he  refers  to  Dionysius 
the  Areopagite  led  to  the  faith  by  Paul,  and  as  the  first  one 
taking  the  oversight  of  the  parish  at  Athens.  The  letter  to 
Nicomedia  was  written  against  the  heresy  of  Marcion,  and  stands 
fast  in  the  canon  of  the  truth.  Writing  to  the  Church  living  in 
this  foreign  world,  "  parishing,"  at  Gortyna  and  to  the  rest  of  the 
Churches  on  Crete,  he  praises  the  Bishop  Philip,  and  tells  him  to 
guard  against  heresy.  In  the  letter  to  Amastris  and  the  rest  in 
Pontus,  written  at  the  request  of  Bacchylides  and  Elpistos,  he 
*'adds  explanations  of  divine  scripture."  It  would  be  interesting 
for  us  to  have  these  comments  of  such  a  high  age.  The  subjects 
touched  upon  in  this  letter  show  how  wide  a  range  a  bishop 
then  dared  to  take  in  writing  to  the  Christians  under  another 
bishop.  "He  exhorts  them  at  length  about  marriage  and 
purity," — we  might  almost  think  he  were  passing  on  to  Amastris 


THE  AGE  OF  IREN^US— DIONYSIUS  OF  CORINTH      1 35 

the  good  thoughts  that  Paul  had  written  to  his  own  Church, — 
"and  he  tells  them  to  receive  again  those  who  return  again 
from  any  fall,  whether  a  sin  in  general  or  whether  a  heretical 
error." 

The  letter  to  the  Cnossians  on  Crete  and  to  their  Bishop 
Pinytus  displays  still  more  plainly  the  fact  that  Dionysius,  we 
might  almost  say,  takes  the  place  of  a  pope  or  of  a  patriarch 
towards  these  bishops  and  their  sees.  Precisely  this  letter  gives 
us  a  New  Testament  background,  for  in  it  "he  begs  Pinytus 
the  bishop  of  the  parish  not  to  place  upon  the  brethren  a  heavy 
burden  of  necessity  concerning  purity,  but  to  consider  the 
weakness  of  the  many."  This  doubtless  points  to  a  wish  on  the 
part  of  Pinytus  to  bring  into  use  ascetic  rules.  "  In  replying  to 
which  Pinytus  admires  and  accepts  what  Dionysius  says,  but 
begs  him  in  return  some  time  to  impart  firmer  food,  nourishing 
the  people  under  him  in  the  future  with  more  complete  letters, 
so  that  they  may  not  by  spending  their  time  with  milk-like  words 
in  the  end  discover  that  they  had  grown  old  in  an  infant  method 
of  life."  We  could  not  wish  for  any  more  practical  portrayal  of 
the  application  of  Paul's  word  to  Church  questions.  "Further," 
says  Eusebius,  "  we  have  a  letter  of  Dionysius  also  addressed  to 
the  Romans."  "  He  writes  as  follows  :  For  from  the  beginning 
this  is  your  habit  to  bestow  kindness  in  various  ways  upon  all 
the  brethren,  and  to  send  provisions  for  the  journey," — remember 
that  the  Christians  are  all  living  in  this  foreign  land,  are  all 
pilgrims  to  the  heavenly  home,  and  hence  need  the  money  or 
other  provision  for  the  way, — "  here  refreshing  the  poverty  of  the 
needy,  and  by  the  money  for  the  journey  which  you  have  sent 
from  the  beginning  affording  support  to  the  brethren  in  the 
mines,  ye  Romans  thus  preserving  the  custom  of  the  Romans 
handed  down  from  the  fathers,  which  your  blessed  Bishop  Soter 
not  only  kept  up  but  also  increased,  not  only  bestowing  the 
abundance  distributed  to  the  saints,  but  also  like  a  warmly-loving 
father  comforting  the  desponding  brethren  like  children  with 
blessed  words."     That  was  Dionysius. 

Eusebius  adds  for  our  special  benefit :  "  In  this  very  letter  he 
also  makes  mention  of  the  letter  of  Clement  to  the  Corinthians, 
bringing  to  view  that  the  reading  of  it  before  the  Church  was 
done  from  old  times  by  an  ancient  custom."  He  says  then : 
"To-day  then  we  passed  the  Lord's  day  a  holy  day,  in  which  we 


136  THE  CANON 

read  your  letter,  which  we  ever  hold  and  keep  in  mind  by  reading 
it,  as  also  the  one  formerly  written  to  us  by  Clement."  The  point 
of  these  things  for  the  canon,  lies  first  of  all  in  the  active  inter- 
course between  the  Churches.  We  have  seen  that  Rome  must 
have  long  since  had  the  body  of  our  New  Testament  books. 
Now  we  see  this  same  Rome  sending  its  riches  to  the  poor  in 
various  Churches,  and  to  the  Christians  working  as  prisoners  in 
mines  and  quarries.  And,  moreover,  Soter  sends  not  only  money, 
but  also  comforting  words.  It  seems  to  me  that  no  rational 
person  will  be  inclined  to  think  that  these  Churches  and  these 
scattered  Christian  prisoners  were  totally  ignorant  of  the  New 
Testament  books,  the  fulfilling  of  the  precepts  in  which  was 
bringing  them  these  bountiful  provisions  for  the  hard  places  in 
their  earthly  journey.  And  in  the  reading  of  Soter's  letter  and  of 
the  letter  of  Clement  we  have  examples  of  the  way  in  which  the 
division  Man  to  Man  in  the  service  was  partly  filled  up.  It  will 
remain  to  be  seen  later  whether  we  should  in  the  case  of  the 
letter  of  Clement  suppose  that  it  was  read  at  Corinth  from  the 
point  of  view  of  God  to  Man.  For  the  moment  it  will  certainly 
be  granted  that  the  mention  of  it  in  connection  with  the  letter  of 
Soter  does  not  point  to  that.  Further  is  to  be  observed  that  the 
reading  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  in  Corinth  as  in 
Rome  is  to  be  presupposed  although  it  is  not  mentioned  here. 
This  is  not  a  thoughtless  assumption.  It  is  the  only  conception 
of  the  situation  that  is  scientifically  possible. 

Dionysius  has  not  yet  exhausted  his  stores  for  us.  He  gives 
us  a  glimpse  of  the  way  in  which  some  Christians  treated  letters 
at  that  day.  Eusebius  writes  :  "  And  the  same  [Dionysius]  speaks 
as  follows  of  his  letters  as  being  treacherously  treated  :  For  when 
the  brethren  asked  it  of  me  that  I  should  write  letters,  I  wrote 
them.  And  these  the  apostles  of  the  devil  have  mingled  with 
tares,  taking  some  things  out  and  putting  some  things  in.  For 
whom  the  Woe  is  waiting.  It  is  then  not  strange  if  some  have 
laid  their  hands  upon  the  work  of  treating  the  writings  about 
the  Lord  treacherously,  seeing  that  they  have  taken  such  counsel 
against  letters  that  are  not  such  as  those  are."  Last  of  all, 
Eusebius  tells  that  Dionysius  wrote  a  letter  to  a  most  faithful 
sister  Chrysophora,  "  in  which,  writing  to  her  of  the  things  that 
belong  to  her  duty,  he  imparts  also  to  her  logical  food,"  food  of 
the  word  we  may  say,  or  reasonable  food.      The  expression  recalls 


THE  AGE  OF   IREN^US— DIONYSIUS  OF  CORINTH  1 37 

Paul's  words  in  Romans,  "your  reasonable  service,"  or  Peter's 
words,  "the  reasonable  guileless  milk."  Dionysius  has  carried 
us  to  Asia  Minor  on  the  east  and  to  Rome  on  the  west,  and  has 
set  the  Church  before  us  in  constant  intercourse  between  its  parts. 
His  letters  themselves  display  a  kind  of  interchange  between 
Churches  that  we  should  not  look  for  to-day  in  circles  in  which 
bishops  rule.  The  Bishop  of  Rhode  Island  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  would  scarcely  like  it  if  the  Bishop  of  Illinois 
should  take  occasion  to  write  to  his  diocese  about  their  duties. 
The  Bishop  of  Durham  would  certainly  not  be  pleased  if  the 
Bishop  of  Lincoln  should  be  asked  to  write  and  should  write  to 
his  diocesans  about  marriage  and  chastity.  The  explanation  lies 
partly  in  the  simple  conditions  of  that  day,  in  the  comparatively 
undeveloped  notion  of  the  duties  and  rights  of  bishops, — would 
that  the  notion  had  remained  undeveloped, — partly  in  the  high 
position  of  Corinth  as  a  city  in  which  Paul  had  lived  and  to 
which  he  had  sent  two  letters,  and  partly  without  doubt  in  a 
certain  gracious  fatherly  disposition  on  the  part  of  Dionysius 
himself,  possibly  coupled  at  the  close  with  the  glory,  the  halo  of 
a  patriarchal  age  on  the  part  of  Dionysius  that  made  bishops  and 
people  eager  to  bask  in  the  light  that  reflected  alike  from  a  remote 
past  of  Christian  tradition  and  from  a  near  future  when  he  should 
stand  before  the  throne  of  God.  Dionysius'  distinction  between 
writings  about  the  Lord — the  Greek  phrase  is  really  "Lordly 
writings,"  the  word  Lord  meaning  here  surely  Jesus — and  his 
own  letters  "  that  are  not  such,"  emphasises  for  us  the  difference 
alluded  to  between  the  writings  which  belong  in  the  service  to 
the  part  God  to  Man  and  those  which  belong  to  the  part  Man 
to  Man.  Probably  Dionysius  has  at  first  in  view  the  Gospels  as 
especially  pertaining  to  the  Lord.  Inasmuch,  however,  as  he  is 
speaking  of  his  own  letters,  it  is  altogether  possible,  and  I  think 
it  probable  that  he  also  thinks  of  the  Epistles  of  the  Apostles  as 
belonging  to  these  writings  respecting  the  Lord. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  last  quarter  of  the  second  century, 
probably  from  the  year  177,  we  have  a  trifling  yet  not  unwelcome 
testimony  to  Matthew,  and  John,  and  Romans,  and  First 
Corinthians,  and  Galatians,  from  the  pen  of  Athenagoras  an 
Athenian  philosopher,  who  wrote  an  Apology,  addressed  to 
Marcus  Aurelius  and  Commodus,  and  soon  after  that  an  essay 
on  the  Resurrection  from  the  dead. 


138  THE  CANON 

Antioch,  which  gave  us  Ignatius,  offers  us  here  Theophilus, 
who  was  bishop  there  somewhere  about  the  years  181  to  190. 
He  wrote  three  books  to  Autolycus  which  are  preserved,  and 
among  many  other,  lost,  books  was  a  Harmony  of  the  Gospels 
and  a  commentary  on  the  Harmony.  Eusebius  declares  that 
Theophilus  quotes  the  book  of  Revelation  in  his  book  against 
the  heretic  Hermogenes.  Describing  Theophilus,  Eusebius 
observes  how  very  corrupt  heresy  then  was,  and  how  the  shepherds 
of  the  Church  warded  the  heretics  off  like  wild  beasts  from  the 
sheep  of  Christ :  "  On  the  one  hand  with  warnings  and  admo- 
nitions to  the  brethren,  and  on  the  other  hand  by  placing  them 
naked  and  unclothed  before  them,  not  only  face  to  face  with 
unwritten  discussions  and  refutations,  but  now  also  by  means 
of  written  reminders  setting  straight  forth  their  opinions  with 
the  most  exact  proofs."  Eusebius  adds  that  Theophilus  wrote  a 
good  book  against  Marcion  which  was  then  still  preserved.  The 
three  books  written  by  Theophilus  to  his  friend  Autolycus,  a 
heathen, — and  Theophilus  was  himself  by  birth  a  heathen, — are 
not  strictly  connected  with  each  other,  having  been  written,  the 
first  as  an  account  of  a  discussion  with  Autolycus,  the  second  at 
the  request  of  Autolycus,  and  the  third  as  a  thought  of 
Theophilus'. 

In  the  closing  chapter  of  the  first  book,  Theophilus  tells 
how  he  himself  had  been  converted  by  reading  "the  sacred 
writings  of  the  holy  prophets,"  who  had  foretold  the  future. 
Like  Justin  and  the  earlier  Aristobulus  and  Philo,  he  de- 
clares that  the  heathen  writers  drew  their  wisdom  from  the 
prophets.  In  the  second  book  he  calls  the  prophets  "spirit- 
bearers  of  the  Holy  Spirit "  inspired  and  made  wise  by  God,  and 
quotes  the  Old  Testament  as  :  "  teaches  us  the  Holy  Spirit  by 
the  prophets," — "teaches  the  divine  scripture," — "the  divine 
scripture," — "  the  divine  Scriptures."  In  one  passage  he  writes  : 
"  Whence  the  holy  Scriptures  and  all  the  spirit-bearers  teach  us, 
of  whom  John  says  :  In  the  beginning  was  the  Word,  and  the 
Word  was  with  God,  showing  that  at  first  God  only  was  and  in 
Him  the  Word."  Then  he  says  :  "  And  God  was  the  Word  :  all 
things  were  made  by  Him  ;  and  without  Him  nothing  was  made." 
This  passage  is  said  not  to  imply  the  equal  value  of  the  books  of 
the  New  Testament  with  those  of  the  Old  Testament.  I  insist 
upon  it  that  so  far  as  these  words  of  Theophilus  have  any  mean- 


THE  AGE  OF   IREN^US— THEOPHILUS   OF  ANTIOCH      1 39 

ing  at  all,  they  place  John  the  evangelist  and  his  words  in  a 
distinctly  exceptional  position.  They  call  John  one  of  the 
"  spirit-bearers,"  and  that  is  precisely  the  designation  which,  as 
we  saw  a  moment  ago,  Theophilus  applied  to  the  prophets  who 
were  the  writers  of  the  divine  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament. 
When,  then,  the  holy  Scriptures  and  all  the  spirit-bearers  are 
mentioned  together  and  John  is  declared  to  be  one  of  them,  the 
purpose  of  this  juxtaposition  is  not  to  say  that  John  is  less  than 
the  prophets,  but  to  put  him  on  a  par  with  the  prophets.  The 
same  thing  if  not  more  appears  from  the  contents  of  the  quotation 
from  John.  What  is  quoted  is  not  a  saying  of  Jesus,  but  the 
saying  of  the  evangelist.  And  this  evangelical  spirit-bearer  does 
not  here  make  some  general  indifferent  remark  such  as  that 
idolatry  or  whoredom  or  what  not  is  a  sin.  On  the  contrary, 
this  Gospel  writer  gives  the  fundamental  statement  touching  God 
and  the  Word :  "In  the  beginning  was  God,  and  the  Word 
was  with  God."  It  seems  to  me  that  no  observation  upon  the 
difference  made  between  a  prophet  and  a  spirit-bearer  can  in  any 
way  overbalance  the  use  here  made  and  made  by  name  touching 
John.  It  is,  besides,  the  first  time  that  John  is  thus  named  as  the 
evangelist.  Theophilus  also  knows  very  well  indeed  the  Epistles 
of  Paul  and  First  Peter.  In  the  third  book,  after  dealing  with 
the  prophets,  he  says  (3.  12) :  "  Moreover  also  as  to  righteousness 
of  which  the  law  speaks,  we  find  that  similar  things  are  con- 
tained in  the  [writings]  of  the  prophets  and  of  the  Gospels," — the 
word  "  Gospels  "  may  very  well  be  an  error  for  "  evangelists," — 
"  because  all  the  spirit-bearers  have  made  their  utterances  with 
the  one  spirit  of  God."  He  then  quotes  the  Gospels  repeatedly  ; 
for  example  (3.  13) :  "And  the  gospel  voice  teaches  in  the  strongest 
manner  about  chastity,  saying  " — not  to  look  at  a  woman  with 
evil  thought,  and  not  to  put  away  a  wife.  Then  he  writes  (3.  14)  : 
"  And  those  doing  what  is  good  it  [the  Gospel]  teaches  not  to 
boast,  that  they  may  not  be  men-pleasers.  For  let  not  your  left 
hand,  it  says,  know  what  your  right  hand  does.  Moreover  also 
about  the  being  subject  to  powers  and  authorities  and  praying 
for  them,  the  divine  word  commands  us  that  we  should  lead  a 
calm  and  quiet  life,  and  teaches  to  render  to  all,  all  things ;  to 
whom  honour,  honour  ;  to  whom  fear,  fear ;  to  whom  taxes,  taxes  : 
to  owe  no  man  anything,  save  only  to  love  all." 

A  great  deal  too  much  has  been  made  of  the  fact  that  Theo- 


I40  THE  CANON 

philus  in  writing  these  three  books  brings  in  comparison  so  little 
from  the  New  Testament  and  so  much  from  the  Old  Testament. 
The  fact  is  that  Theophilus  in  the  first  place  quotes  extraordinarily 
often  all  manner  of  heathen  books,  not,  of  course,  as  Scripture, 
high  as  he  rates  the  Sibyl.  And  then  he  quotes  a  great  deal 
from  the  Old  Testament  precisely  because  Autolycus  wishes  to  be 
informed  about  God  and  about  man  from  an  Old  Testament  point 
of  view.  He  quotes,  for  example,  at  one  breath  about  three  pages 
from  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis,  and  a  little  later  he  brings 
another  three  pages.  For  the  larger  part  of  the  three  books  only 
the  Old  Testament  gave  him  the  massive  sentences  about  God 
that  he  wanted.  Furthermore,  it  has  been  said  that  he  quotes 
the  New  Testament  very  freely ;  but  so  he  does  also  the  Old 
Testament  when  he  does  not  need  to  get  down  a  roll  and  write 
off  a  long  paragraph.  For  example,  Isaiah  writes  (40^2) :  "  He 
that  sets  up  as  a  chamber  the  heaven  and  stretches  [it]  out  like  a 
tent  to  inhabit."  Theophilus  introduces  this  most  formally,  but 
writes  (2.  13) :  "  God  this  one  (This  God  [I  wished  to  represent  the 
Greek  words]),  the  one  making  the  heaven  like  a  chamber^  and 
stretching  [it]  out  like  a  tent  to  be  lived  in" 

As  to  the  use  of  the  Old  Testament,  even  in  the  third  book 
it  is  to  be  urged  that  one  main  point  of  that  third  book,  as  the 
first  chapter  shows,  is  the  refutation  of  the  opinion  of  Autolycus 
that  the  books  of  the  Christians  are  new.  It  seems  to  me  to 
follow  directly  from  this  opinion  of  Autolycus,  that  he  had  heard 
of  altogether  new  Scriptures  of  the  Christians.  Indeed  the  weight 
of  this  statement  goes  rather  to  show  that  these  newer  books  were 
the  ones  upon  which  the  Christians  laid  the  greatest  stress.  Of 
course,  then,  in  opposing  such  views  Theophilus  must  quote  more 
Old  Testament  than  New  Testament,  and  must  emphasise  the 
value  of  those  old  books  from  which  he  deduces  the  wisdom  of 
the  heathen  poets  and  philosophers.  And  there  he  cites  Moses 
and  Isaiah  and  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel,  whose  very  names  produce 
an  atmosphere  of  antiquity  and  of  mystery.  The  words  given 
above  as  the  strong  command  of  the  Gospel  voice  about  chastity 
are  the  intensifying  of  a  word  from  Solomon.  But  that  does  not 
in  the  least  signify  that  Theophilus  did  not  account  the  Gospel 
as  equal  to  Solomon.  It  is  only  a  part  of  Theophilus'  plan  to 
give  first  those  old  writings  which  he  is  straining  every  nerve  to 
commend  as  ancient  and  reverend  to  his  heathen  friend. 


THE  AGE  OF   IREN^US— THEOPHILUS   OF  ANTIOCH      I4I 

The  very  way  in  which  he  nevertheless  represents  the  Gospel 
as  giving  a  more  commanding  statement  as  to  chastity,  permits 
us  to  see  that  he  himself  is  more  inclined  to  place  the  Gospels 
above  than  below  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures.  And  then  we 
are  told  that  Theophilus  does  not  account  Paul's  writings  of  high 
value,  or  as  equal  to  those  of  the  Old  Testament.  Now  it  is  not 
well  to  be  all  too  wise  about  shades  of  difference.  I  confess  that 
I  do  not  feel  sure  that  Theophilus  regarded  the  prophets  as 
exactly  equal  to  the  law.  In  the  same  way  it  must  be  conceded 
that  Theophilus  may  have  thought  that  the  letters  of  Paul  were 
not  quite  equal  to  the  words  of  Jesus.  But  a  concession  of  this 
kind  is  of  no  extraordinary  importance.  For,  if  I  am  not 
mistaken,  in  spite  of  all  doctrines  of  the  equality  of  the  holiness 
of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  only  very  few  Christians  in 
this  twentieth  century  would  fail  to  feel  that  a  statement  backed 
by  direct  words  of  Jesus  had  a  higher  authority  than  one  merely 
confirmed  by  an  Epistle  of  Paul  or  any  other  apostle.  When, 
however,  we  find  that  Theophilus  quotes  Old  Testament  passages 
with  varying  degrees  of  freedom  and  with  indefinitely  varying 
introductory  words,  we  must  not  ask  too  much  for  the  New 
Testament  words.  Look,  for  example,  at  the  following  series. 
Theophilus  (3.  14)  quotes  Isaiah,  and  introduces  the  words  by: 
"  Isaiah  the  prophet  said."  Directly  after  the  verse  from  Isaiah 
he  quotes  Matthew,  using  the  introduction:  "And  the  Gospel: 
Love  ye,  it  saith,"  and  so  on.  He  brings  here  two  or  three 
passages  from  Matthew  together.  And  then  he  passes  to  the 
Epistle  to  Titus  in  this  manner :  "  And  further  also  about  the 
being  subject  to  powers  and  authorities  and  praying  for  them, 
the  divine  word  commands  us  that  we  should  live  a  calm  and 
quiet  life.  And  teaches  to  render  to  all,  all  things  " ;  see  above. 
The  prophet  said,  the  Gospel  saith,  it  says  (used  in  one  of  the 
quotations  from  Matthew),  the  divine  word  commands  us.  That 
series  shows  to  my  mind  no  special  decline  in  its  reverence  for 
Paul  when  it  says  of  his  words :  "  the  divine  word  commands 
us."  His  words  are  words  of  the  divine  word,  and  they  command 
us. 

It  seems  to  me  that  that  places  Paul's  words  just  as  high 
as  the  words  of  Isaiah.  We  must,  however,  remember  that 
Theophilus'  main  point  against  his  heathen  friend  is  the  age  of 
the  writings.    Shortly  after  the  above  quotation  he  writes  (3.  16) : 


142  THE  CANON 

"  But  I  wish  to  show  thee  now  more  accurately,  God  granting, 
the  things  which  pertain  to  the  times,  so  that  thou  mayest 
understand  that  our  word  is  neither  new  nor  mythical,  but  older 
and  more  true  than  all  the  poets  and  writers,  of  those  writing  in 
uncertainty."  Of  necessity,  then,  he  must  go  back  to  Moses  and 
the  prophets  as  predecessors  of  Homer  and  Plato  and  the  rest  of 
the  heathen  poets  and  philosophers.  And  this  third  book  then 
continues  to  the  close  the  comparison  of  Jewish  and  heathen 
history.  There  is  to  my  mind  not  the  shadow  of  a  doubt  that 
Theophilus  had  the  bulk  of  our  New  Testament  books,  and  that 
he  regarded  them  in  general  as  all  of  them  equal  in  authority  to 
the  books  of  the  Old  Testament. 

From  Antioch  and  the  East  we  must  now  pass  far  over  to  the 
West,  to  Gaul,  and  visit  the  Churches  of  Vienne  and  of  Lyons. 
Vienne  is  the  place  to  which  Herod  was  sent  as  an  exile  with 
Herodias  after  the  murder  of  John  the  Baptist.  Josephus  the 
Jewish  historian  says  so.  It  lies  thirty-one  kilometres  to  the 
south  of  Lyons,  and  contains  still  a  temple  of  Augustus  and 
Livia.  Lyons  itself,  where  Augustus  resided  several  years,  is 
to-day  the  third  city  of  France.  Eusebius  opens  the  fifth  book 
of  his  Church  History  by  a  brilliant  paragraph  upon  the  martyrs 
who  suffered  under  Antoninus  Verus,  that  is  to  say,  Marcus 
Aurelius,  and  that  in  the  seventeenth  year  of  his  reign,  about 
the  year  178-179.  He  relates  that  these  persecutions  were 
stirred  up  by  the  populace  in  the  cities  here  and  there  through 
the  world ;  and  he  offers  to  give  as  a  specimen  the  story  of  those 
martyred  in  one  special  country,  because  he  is  so  fortunate  as  to 
have  a  written  account  of  their  sufferings,  which  were  worthy  of 
imperishable  remembrance,  being  not  victories  won  by  blood 
and  tens  of  thousands  of  murders  of  children,  but  most  peaceful 
wars  for  peace  of  the  soul,  not  even  for  the  native  country,  but 
for  the  truth  and  for  godliness.  And  then  he  points  to  Gaul 
and  to  those  cities  in  the  valley  of  the  Rhone. 

The  document  to  which  he  refers  is  a  letter  of  the  two  Churches 
of  Vienne  and  Lyons.  The  very  address  of  this  letter  reminds  us 
again  of  the  close  union  between  the  Churches  in  distant  lands, 
for  it  is  addressed  to  the  Churches  in  Asia  and  Phrygia.  It  was 
less  strange  that  the  same  Churches  also  sent  at  the  same  time 
a  letter  to  Rome,  borne  by  Irenaeus,  to  whom  we  have  already 
referred,   who  was  then  a  presbyter  in  the  Church  at  Lyons. 


THE  AGE  OF   IREN^US— VIENNE  AND  LYONS       I43 

They  began  the  former  letter  thus :  "  The  servants  of  God 
dwelling  in  this  foreign  world  at  Vienne  and  Lyons  in  Gaul,  to 
the  brethren  in  Asia  and  Phrygia  who  have  the  same  faith  and 
hope  of  redemption  as  we  have,  peace  and  grace  and  glory  from 
God  the  Father  and  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord."  Declaring  that 
they  could  not  duly  describe  nor  writing  contain  an  exact 
account  of  all  they  had  suffered,  they  wrote :  "  But  the  grace 
of  God  led  the  fray  against  them  and  strengthened  the  weak, 
and  set  up  firm  pillars  able  by  their  patience  to  draw  upon 
themselves  the  whole  impetus  of  the  evil'  one,  who  also  met 
him  together,  standing  all  kinds  of  contumely  and  punishment, 
who  also  thinking  the  many  [ills]  were  but  few  hurried  on  to 
Christ,  showing,  in  fact,  that  the  sufferings  of  the  present  time 
are  not  worthy  to  be  compared  to  the  glory  which  is  going  to 
be  revealed  to  us."  It  is  clear  that  they  knew  the  eighth 
chapter  of  Romans  (ver.  18).  And  they  told  of  the  first  valiant 
young  martyr  who  laid  down  his  life  for  the  defence  of  the 
brethren :  "  For  he  was  and  he  is  a  genuine  disciple  of  Christ, 
following  the  Lamb  wherever  He  may  go."  They  therefore  were 
at  home  in  the  fourteenth  chapter  of  the  Revelation.  Ten,  alas  ! 
yielded  to  the  wiles  of  the  evil  one. 

Some  of  their  heathen  servants  came  out  and  denounced 
them  as  cannibals  and  as  committing  other  horrible  crimes,  and 
then  the  people  attacked  them  still  more  furiously :  "  And  that 
was  fulfilled  which  our  Lord  said :  That  the  time  will  come  in 
which  every  one  slaying  you  will  think  he  is  offering  a  service 
to  God."  The  sixteenth  chapter  of  John  was  therefore  in  their 
hands.  One  of  the  men  tortured  was  Attalos,  who  was  from 
Pergamon ;  and  a  woman,  Blandina,  endured  torture  from  early 
morn  until  the  evening,  so  that  her  persecutors  confessed  them- 
selves conquered,  for  they  did  not  know  what  they  could  do 
more  to  her ;  and  they  were  amazed  that  she  still  lived,  with  her 
whole  body  rent  and  open.  But  she  still  held  out,  and  she  cried  : 
"  I  am  a  Christian,  and  no  evil  deed  is  done  among  us."  Sanctus, 
who  was  tortured  in  the  extreme,  then  took  up  a  single  answer ; 
and  whether  they  asked  his  name,  or  his  race,  or  his  native 
country,  or  whether  he  was  bond  or  free,  replied  to  all  questions 
by  saying  in  Latin  the  words  :  "  I  am  a  Christian."  The  governor 
was  furious,  and  they  put  fiery  plates  of  brass  upon  the  tenderest 
spots  in  his  body.     It  burned  his  flesh,  but  he  remained  firm : 


144  THE  CANON 

"  Cooled  and  strengthened  by  the  heavenly  spring  of  the  water 
of  life  going  forth  from  the  body  of  Christ."  We  see  how  the 
Revelation  and  John  are  combined  in  that  expression. 

Potheinos  the  bishop,  who  was  over  ninety  years  of  age,  was 
brought  before  the  governor,  who  asked  him  who  was  the  God 
of  the  Christians.  After  all  the  questions  and  answers  that  the 
governor  had  put  and  heard  in  these  days,  Potheinos  regarded 
this  question  as  mere  trifling,  and  he  replied  to  the  governor : 
"  If  you  were  worthy,  you  would  know."  And  then  the  crowd  hit 
and  kicked  and  threw  things  at  the  old  man,  and  he  was  carried 
away  almost  lifeless  to  the  prison,  where  he  died  in  two  days. 
The  beasts  were  let  loose  upon  them  in  the  amphitheatre,  but  in 
vain.  The  greater  part  of  those  who  had  from  fear  renounced 
Christianity,  returned  to  a  joyful  martyrdom.  One  of  the  most 
valiant  martyrs  was  Alexander,  a  physician  from  Phrygia,  who 
had  been  many  years  in  Gaul,  another  witness  for  the  union  of 
West  and  East.  When  they  put  Attalus  on  the  heated  iron  chair, 
he  cried  out  to  the  crowd  in  Latin  :  "  This  that  you  are  doing  is 
eating  men.  We  do  not  eat  men,  nor  do  we  do  anything  else 
that  is  bad."  The  firmness  of  the  martyrs  only  infuriated  the 
governor  and  the  mob,  and  the  Church  wrote  of  them  in  the 
words  of  Daniel  and  of  Revelation:  "That  the  scripture  should 
be  fulfilled :  Let  the  lawless  one  be  lawless  still,  and  let  the 
just  one  be  justified  still."  Knowing  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
resurrection,  the  heathen  watched  the  corpses  of  the  martyrs 
night  and  day,  and  allowed  no  Christian  to  hold  a  burial  service 
over  them  or  to  take  them  away  for  burial.  After  six  days  they 
threw  what  was  not  eaten  by  the  dogs  or  burned  up  by  fire  into 
the  Rhone.  And  they  cried  in  an  unconscious  imitation  of  the 
spectators  around  the  cross  of  Jesus  :  "  Now  let  us  see  whether 
they  will  rise  again,  and  whether  their  God  is  able  to  help  thenl, 
and  to  draw  them  out  of  our  hands." 

The  letter  called  the  Christians  who  had  been  tortured  not 
once  or  twice  only  but  often,  and  who  were  full  of  burns  and 
sores  and  wounds,  and  who  nevertheless  neither  called  themselves 
martyrs  nor  wished  the  others  to  call  them  martyrs, — the  letter 
called  them  zealous  followers  and  imitators  of  Christ,  "  who," — 
in  the  words  of  the  second  chapter  of  Philippians, — "  being  in 
the  form  of  God,  did  not  think  that  the  being  equal  to  God  was 
a  thing  that  He  should  seize."     We  see  in  that  the  way  in  which 


THE  AGE  OF   IREN^US— VIENNE  AND  LYONS  I45 

they  understood  that  passage,  and,  of  course,  we  see  that  they 
knew  well  that  Epistle.  A  little  after  that  they  used  a  phrase 
from  First  Peter,  saying  of  the  martyrs  that  "  they  humbled  them- 
selves under  the  mighty  hand  [of  God]."  And  then  they  allude 
to  the  book  of  Acts :  "  And  they  prayed  for  those  who  brought 
these  fearful  things  upon  them,  like  Stephen  the  perfect  martyr : 
Put  not  this  sin  upon  them."  And  they  add  beautifully  :  "  But 
if  he  prayed  for  the  people  who  stoned  him,  how  much  more  for 
the  brethren."  That  letter  warmed  and  cheered  and  spurred  on 
to  like  deeds  many  a  Christian  heart  in  those  days.  For  us  it  is 
a  monument  of  the  unity  of  the  Church,  and  a  witness  to  the  use 
of  books  of  the  New  Testament. 

No  one  will  undertake  to  deny  that  Potheinos,  dying  as  bishop 
in  178  at  more  than  ninety  years  of  age,  stretched  back  with  his 
memory  to  the  end  of  the  first  century,  seeing  that  he  must  have 
been  born  before  the  year  S8.  We  know  of  Potheinos  the  bishop, 
over  ninety  years  old,  and  of  Polycarp,  who  was  martyred  as 
bishop,  eighty-six  years  old,  in  the  year  155.  How  many  other 
bishops  and  Christians  wove  the  long  years  with  long  bands  in 
one,  whose  names  we  do  not  know,  because  they  were  not 
martyrs,  or  because  the  story  of  their  martyrdom  has  not  reached 
us  !  Who  that  has  any  appreciation  of  historic  sequence  and  of 
historic  contemporaneity  can  speak  of  the  early  Christian  Church 
as  if  it  were  a  disjointed,  ill-connected  series  of  little  societies  that 
knew  little  of  each  other  and  less  of  the  past,  and  were  a  ready 
prey  for  every  and  even  the  most  unskilful  forger  of  Scriptures  ? 

It  was  about  this  time  apparently,  somewhere  about  the 
year  178,  that  a  heathen  named  Celsus  wrote  a  book  against 
Christianity  and  called  it  The  True  Word.  In  it  he  first  pro- 
duces a  Jew  who  refutes  the  externals  of  Jesus'  life.  Then 
he  attacks  it  from  the  general  point  of  view  of  a  heathen 
philosopher,  and  endeavours  to  refute  it  in  detail  by  arguments 
drawn  from  the  history  of  philosophy;  and  then  he  tries  to 
persuade  the  Christians  to  turn  heathen.  One  thing  is  plain, 
and  that  is  that  he  in  general  uses  for  the  purpose  of  refuting 
them  precisely  our  New  Testament  books  in  the  main.  He 
regards  them  as  for  Christians  authoritative.  At  the  close  of 
his  first  part,  in  which  a  Jew  has  been  bearing  hard  against 
Christianity,  he  shows  clearly  his  position,  his  attitude  towards 
the  Scriptures.  He  writes :  "  Thus  much,  then,  for  you  from 
10 


146  THE  CANON 

your  own  writings,  on  the  basis  of  which  we  need  no  other 
witness,  for  they  refute  themselves."  He  was  of  the  opinion 
that  the  different  Gospels  arose  from  a  different  conception  of 
the  facts  which  led  different  people  to  change  the  one  original 
Gospel  into  the  forms  of  the  four  Gospels.  He  scourges  the 
inclination  of  Christians  to  divide  up  into  sects  seeking  novel 
opinions,  and  declares  that  if  all  other  people  came  to  desire  to 
be  Christians,  the  Christians  would  not  care  to  be  Christians 
any  longer.  He  says  that  at  the  beginning  there  were  only  a 
few  of  them,  and  these  were  of  one  mind  ;  but  that  after  they  had 
increased  and  were  spread  abroad  in  great  numbers,  they  divided 
and  separated  themselves  from  each  other,  and  each  wished  to 
have  his  own  party.  He  says  that  in  the  end  they  only  have  the 
name  Christian  in  common,  but  in  reaHty  hardly  that.  He 
presses  hard  upon  the  belief  of  the  Christians :  "  All  this  great 
effect  is  made  by  faith,  which  is  determined  in  advance  for 
something  or  other.  And  so  the  faith,  which  has  taken  possession 
of  their  souls,  procures  for  the  Christians  the  great  attachment  to 
Jesus,  so  that  they  account  Him,  who  came  from  a  mortal  body, 
for  God,  and  suppose  they  are  doing  something  holy  in  thinking 
this."  Celsus'  book,  so  far  as  we  can  judge  of  it  from  the 
plentiful  quotations  which  Origen  gives  in  refuting  it,  was  simply 
full  of  the  New  Testament,  of  the  New  Testament  in  general  as 
we  have  it  in  our  hands.  What  he  finds  strange,  stupid,  base, 
that  is  what  we  read  in  the  New  Testament.  He  is  also  well 
acquainted  with  the  history  of  the  Christians,  and  with  the  way  in 
which  certain  heretics  treated  the  Gospels  and  Epistles. 

We  have  named  the  period  which  is  now  occupying  our 
thoughts,  the  age  of  Irenaeus.  Irenseus  is  another  of  the  living 
bonds  between  the  East  and  the  West,  between  Smyrna,  we  may 
say  in  general  Asia  Minor,  and  Lyons  or  Gaul.  It  is  to  be 
agreed  that  we  do  not  know  positively  that  he  was  born  and 
grew  up  in  Asia  Minor.  He  himself  did  not  think  it  worth 
while  to  make  any  precise  statements  upon  this  subject.  I 
think,  however,  that  his  reference  to  Smyrna  and  to  Polycarp 
and  to  Florinus,  a  friend  or  at  least  an  acquaintance  of  his 
boyhood,  all  point  to  a  stay  of.  some  years  in  Smyrna;  and 
nothing  seems  to  speak  against  his  having  been  born  there,  save 
the  tradition,  almost  isolated  tradition,  that  he  was  by  birth  a 
Syrian.     We  know  of  nothing  that  in  any  way  seems  to  favour 


THE  AGE  OF   IREN^US— IREN^US  I47 

his  coming  originally  from  Syria.  In  one  special  way  there 
would  be  no  obstacle  to  Syrian  birth,  if,  namely,  like  Tatian,  he 
should  have  been  brought  up  in  Syria  as  a  Greek.  However,  I 
regard  it  as  most  likely  that  he  was  born  and  lived  through  his 
boyhood  at  least  in  Asia  Minor,  and  probably  in  or  near  Smyrna. 
Thus  far  we  can  only  guess  at  the  date  of  his  birth.  He  was 
probably  born  between  the  years  135  and  142. 

As  a  boy  he  saw  Polycarp  at  Smyrna,  and  he  appears  to  have 
been  younger  than  Florinus  whom  he  also  saw,  also  during  his  own 
boyhood,  at  Smyrna  and  in  the  presence  of  Polycarp.  Irenaeus 
speaks  in  no  wise  as  if  he  had  been  a  pupil  of  Polycarp's,  but 
only  as  if  he  remembered  seeing  the  distinguished  old  man  as 
any  boy  stands  and  admires  an  old  and  reverend  bishop.  It  is 
humanly  speaking  a  mere  accident  that  furnishes  us  with  that 
minute  touching  Polycarp.  Florinus,  who  was  a  presbyter  in  the 
Church  at  Rome,  became  a  heretic,  took  up  the  Valentinian 
Gnosticism  while  Victor  was  bishop,  and  therefore  after  189  or 
190.  And  Irenaeus,  who  has  been  finding  that  Florinus'  heretical 
books  are  spreading  that  heresy  in  Gaul,  not  only  writes  to 
Victor  and  begs  him  to  suppress  Florinus  and  his  writings,  but 
also  writes  to  Florinus  himself,  and  begins  as  a  way  of  catching 
at  a  favourable  point  in  Florinus'  feelings  by  recalling  his  having 
in  boyhood  seen  Florinus  playing  a  distinguished  part  in  the 
imperial  chambers  and  before  Polycarp.  Whether  the  allusions 
to  royalty  imply  a  visit  of  an  emperor  or  not,  is  not  so  clear  as  to 
make  that  point  valuable  for  dating  the  meeting  of  Irenaeus  with 
Florinus.  Irenaeus  says  the  most  flattering  thing  he  can  to 
Florinus,  and  gives  us  at  the  same  time  a  glimpse  of  his  own 
early  life.  He  tells  that  he  remembers  just  where  and  how 
Polycarp  sat  and  preached  to  the  multitude,  and  how  he  told  of 
his  intercourse  with  John  and  with  others  who  had  seen  the 
Lord,  and  of  some  things  he  had  heard  from  them  about  the 
Lord  and  about  His  miracles  and  teaching,  and  how,  having 
received  [it]  from  those  who  themselves  had  seen  the  life  of  the 
Word,  Polycarp  announced  all  things  in  unison  with  the  Scriptures. 
Here  we  see  the  combination  of  the  two  elements,  of  the  tradition 
by  word  of  mouth  and  of  the  written  books.  It  is  fitting  that 
Irenaeus  should  lay  stress  upon  this  point,  for  it  is  especially 
with  him  that  we  begin  to  feel  as  if  we  had  a  certain  literary 
basis  for  Christian  life  and  Christian  doctrine. 


148  THE  CANON 

He  continues  the  appeal  to  Florinus  (Eusebius,  H.  E.  5.  20) : 
"  And  these  things  then  by  the  grace  of  God  that  was  granted 
to  me  I  heard  eagerly,  storing  them  up  for  memory  not  on 
paper  but  in  my  heart,  and  I  do  ever  by  the  grace  of  God 
chew  the  cud  of  them  in  their  genuineness."  And  then  he 
applies  this  all  to  his  friend  :  "  And  I  am  able  to  bear  witness 
before  God  that  if  that  blessed  and  apostolic  presbyter  had 
heard  some  such  thing  as  this  [Florinus'  heresy],  crying  out 
and  stopping  his  ears  and  saying  his  accustomed  phrase :  '  O 
good  God,  until  what  times  hast  Thou  preserved  me,  that  I 
undergo  these  things,'  he  would  also  have  fled  from  the  place 
sitting  or  standing  in  which  he  had  heard  these  words."  And 
he  confirms  this  his  verbal  tradition  by  adding  the  reference  to 
Polycarp's  letters  :  "  And  this  can  be  made  plain  from  his  letters 
which  he  sent  either  to  the  neighbouring  Churches  strengthening 
them,  or  to  some  of  the  brethren  admonishing  them  and  urging 
them  on."  We  thus  have  here  the  whole  round  of  our  field : 
(i)  the  teaching  of  the  Lord  ;  (2)  the  words  of  those  who  saw  and 
heard  the  Lord ;  (3)  the  living  words  of  Polycarp  preaching  to 
the  people  what  he  heard  from  those  who  saw  the  Lord;  (4) 
Irenseus'  account  of  the  preaching  of  Polycarp  as  agreeing  with 
the  Scriptures ;  (5)  and  at  last  Polycarp's  letters  as  conveying 
the  same  things  as  his  preaching.  The  Scriptures  play  in  this 
an  important  part.  The  value  of  the  testimony  from  the  eye- 
witnesses is  undisputed,  and  this  testimony  is  brought  to  bear  to 
confirm  the  sacred  books  of  the  Church. 

Irenaeus  was  then  no  stranger  to  the  Church  at  Rome,  for 
he  had  about  ten  years  before  as  a  presbyter  of  the  Church 
at  Lyons  carried  the  letter  of  that  Church  and  of  the  Church 
at  Vienne  about  the  persecutions  to  the  Church  at  Rome,  and 
his  Church  gave  him  a  high  and  warm  recommendation  to  the 
Church  in  the  imperial  city.  The  two  Churches  wrote  to 
Eleutheros  the  bishop  at  Rome  (Eusebius,  H.  E.  5.  4) : 
"  We  have  encouraged  our  brother  and  partaker  [in  our  cares] 
Irenseus  to  bear  this  letter  to  thee,  and  we  beg  thee  to  be  kind 
to  him  as  being  zealous  for  the  covenant  of  Christ."  It  is 
interesting  to  observe  that  Irenaeus  in  his  effort  to  draw  Florinus 
back  to  the  Church  also  wrote  to  him  a  treatise  on  the  Eight, 
the  Ogdoas  of  Florinus'  Valentinian  system.  Irenaeus'  great 
work  was  his  Refutation  of  the  Heresies  in  five  books.     Un- 


THE  AGE  OF   IREN^US— IREN^US  I49 

fortunately  the  original  is  to  a  large  extent  lost,  so  that  we  are 
compelled  to  use  for  much  of  it  the  Latin  translation.  It  must 
have  been  written  between  the  years  181  and  189,  and  it  may 
be  called  our  first  large  Christian  treatise  in  the  series  of  Church 
writers  that  continues  from  his  day  to  the  present  in  an  almost 
unbroken  series.  A  bishop  of  his  day,  one  combining  the 
traditions  of  Asia  Minor,  of  Rome,  and  of  Gaul,  cannot  but 
have  had  the  bulk  of  our  New  Testament.  He  uses  distinctly 
the  four  Gospels,  the  book  of  Acts,  First  Peter,  First  John,  all 
the  Epistles  of  Paul  save  Philemon, — how  easily  that  could 
happen  not  to  be  quoted, — and  the  Revelation. 

Irenaeus'  words  about  the  four  Gospels  have  passed  into  the 
literature  of  the  Church  in  the  closest  connection  with  the 
Gospels,  for  they  are  used  in  a  very  large  number  of  manuscripts 
as  a  brief  preface  to  the  Gospels.  After  giving  through  many 
pages  a  full  description  of  the  four  Gospels,  he  writes  (3.  11.  8) : 
"  But  neither  are  there  more  Gospels  in  number  than  these,  nor 
does  it  receive  fewer.  Since  there  are  four  directions  of  the 
world  in  which  we  are,  and  four  general  winds,  and  the  Church 
is  dispersed  through  all  the  earth,  and  the  pillar  and  confirming 
of  the  Church  is  the  gospel  and  spirit  of  life,  it  is  fitting  that 
it  should  have  four  pillars,  breathing  from  all  sides  incorruption, 
and  inflaming  men.  From  which  it  is  clear  that  the  Word,  the 
maker  of  all  things,  the  one  sitting  on  the  Cherubim  and  holding 
all  things  together,  having  been  revealed  to  men,  gave  us  the 
Gospel  fourfold,  but  held  together  in  one  spirit.  .  .  .  For  the 
Cherubim  are  four-faced,  and  their  faces  are  images  of  the  activity 
of  the  Son  of  God.  For  the  first  living  being,  they  say,  is  like 
a  lion,  characterising  his  practical  and  leading  and  kingly  office. 
And  the  second  is  like  a  calf  [or  an  ox],  showing  forth  the  sacri- 
ficial and  priestly  order.  And  the  third  having  the  face  of  a  man, 
denoting  most  clearly  His  presence  in  human  form.  And  the 
fourth  like  a  flying  eagle,  making  clear  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  flying 
down  to  the  Church.  And  therefore  the  Gospels  agree  with 
these,  in  which  Christ  sits.  For  that  according  to  John  relates 
His  princely  and  effective  and  glorious  generation,  saying :  In  the 
beginning  was  the  Word.  .  .  .  And  that,  according  to  Luke, 
[telling]  what  is  of  the  priestly  character,  begins  with  Zacharias 
the  priest  sacrificing  to  God.  For  the  fatted  calf  is  already 
prepared,  about  to  be  slain  for  the  finding  again  of  the  younger 


150  THE  CANON 

son.  And  Matthew  heralds  His  birth  according  to  man,  saying : 
The  book  of  the  generation  of  Jesus  Christ,  son  of  David,  son  of 
Abraham.  And  :  The  birth  of  Jesus  Christ  was  thus.  Therefore 
this  Gospel  is  anthropomorphic.  And  Mark  made  his  beginning 
from  the  prophetic  spirit,  that  comes  upon  men  from  on  high, 
saying  :  The  beginning  of  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ  as  is  written 
in  Isaiah  the  prophet,  showing  the  winged  image  of  the  Gospel. 
And  for  this  reason  he  made  the  message  short  and  swiftly 
running,  for  this  is  the  prophetic  character.  .  .  .  For  the  living 
beings  are  fourfold,  and  the  Gospel  and  the  activity  of  the  Lord  is 
fourfold.  And  for  this  reason  four  general  covenants  were  given 
to  humanity.  One  of  the  Flood,  with  Noah  with  the  sign  of  the 
rainbow.  And  the  second  Abraham's,  with  the  sign  of  circumci- 
sion. And  the  third,  the  giving  of  the  law  under  Moses.  And 
the  fourth,  the  Gospel,  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ." 

Then  Irenseus  goes  on  (3.  11.  9)  to  berate  the  empty  and  un- 
learned and  bold  men  "  who  put  aside  the  idea  " — that  is  to  say, 
the  proper  notion  and  preconception — "  of  the  Gospel,  and  bring 
forward  either  more  or  fewer  than  the  above  mentioned  forms  of 
the  Gospel.  Some  of  them  so  that  they  may  seem  to  have  found 
out  more  of  the  truth,  the  others  setting  aside  the  things  arranged 
by  God."  These  words  look,  at  the  first  glance,  very  interesting. 
It  seems  as  if  we  might  here,  say  in  the  year  185,  have  a  repre- 
sentation of  unknown  apocryphal  Gospels,  or  perhaps  a  description 
of  various  Gospels  that  were  just  as  good  as,  and  in  some  places 
quite  as  well  accepted  as  our  four  Gospels,  but  that  did  not 
survive  because  they  had  not  the  good  fortune  to  be  added  to  the 
four  Gospels.  Whom  has  Irenaeus  thought  of?  Who  had  less 
or  more  Gospels  ?  Irenaeus  goes  on :  "  For  Marcion  rejecting 
the  whole  Gospel,  or  to  say  it  better,  cutting  himself  off  in  fact 
from  the  Gospel,  boasts  that  he  has  a  part  of  the  Gospel."  We 
see  at  once  what  that  means.  The  rejecting  the  whole  Gospel  is 
simply  Marcion's  cutting  himself  off  from  the  Church  and  setting 
up  Churches  for  himself.  And  the  boasting  that  he  has  part  of 
the  Gospel  is  not  Marcion's,  but  Irenseus'  way  of  putting  it,  or  is 
rather  a  mixture  of  Irenseus  and  of  Marcion.  Marcion  would 
not  have  boasted  and  did  not  boast  that  he  had  a  "  part "  of  the 
Gospel.  According  to  his  conception  of  the  case,  what  he  had 
was  the  Gospel  and  the  whole  Gospel.  What  he  rejected  and  cut 
out,  that  was  not  Gospel  at  all.     Marcion  therefore  boasted  that 


THE  AGE  OF  IREN^US— IREN^US  151 

he,  and  that  he  alone,  had  the  pure  and  genuine  Gospel,  without 
adulteration  and  corruption,  in  that  Gospel  which  he  had  won 
from  the  ore  in  the  Gospel  of  Luke.  But  that  was  for  Irenaeus 
a  mere  butt  end  of  a  Gospel,  a  miserable  excuse  for  a  Gospel,  and 
hence  he  puts  it  as  he  does,  that  Marcion  boasts  that  he  has  a 
part  of  the  Gospel.  That  was,  then,  one  effort  to  reduce  the 
number  of  the  Gospels,  or  we  might  term  it,  to  lessen  the  amount 
of  the  Gospel. 

The  second  is  of  a  different  character :  "  Others,  however, 
in  order  to  make  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  ineffective,  which  in 
these  last  days  by  the  decree  of  the  Father  is  shed  abroad  upon 
the  human  race,  do  not  admit  that  form  which  is  the  Gospel 
according  to  John,  in  which  the  Lord  promises  that  He  will 
send  the  Comforter,  but  reject  at  the  same  time  the  Gospel  and 
the  prophetic  spirit.  Wretched  men,  indeed,  who  wish  to  be 
false  prophets," — again  a  word  of  Irenaeus',  for  they  regard 
themselves,  of  course,  as  true  and  genuine  prophets, — "  but  repel 
the  prophetic  grace  from  the  Church.  .  .  .  We  are  given  to  under- 
stand, moreover,  that  such  men  as  these  as  little  accept  the 
Apostle  Paul.  For  in  the  Epistle  which  is  to  the  Corinthians,  he 
spoke  most  diligently  of  prophetic  gifts,  and  knows  of  men  and 
women  prophesying  in  the  Church.  By  all  these  things  therefore, 
sinning  against  the  Spirit  of  God,  they  fall  into  the  sin  that 
cannot  be  forgiven."  Who  are  these  people  who  reject  the 
Gospel  of  John  ?  They  appear  to  be  certain  Christians  whom  a 
later  writer,  Epiphanius,  calls  Alogians,  or  people  who  were 
against  the  Logos,  the  Word.  We  might  call  them  No-Worders. 
Singularly  enough,  we  know  very  little  about  them.  With  them 
Irenaeus  has  exhausted  his  catalogue  of  the  people  who  are 
content  with  fewer  than  the  four  Gospels.  The  great  point  for  us 
is,  that  these  two  sets  of  people  bring  in  no  new  Gospels. 
They  had  our  four  Gospels  in  their  hands,  and  they  chose  on  the 
one  hand  to  content  themselves  with  a  mutilated  Luke,  and  on 
the  other  hand  to  be  satisfied  with  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke, 
and  to  let  John  go.  Marcion  did  have  great  influence,  as  we 
have  seen.  These  others,  the  rejecters  of  John,  appear  to  have 
had  as  good  as  no  influence,  for  we  find  almost  no  traces  of 
them.  They  are  celebrated  as  being  about  the  only  persons  in 
ancient  times  who  were  so  lacking  in  judgment  as  to  give  up  that 
Gospel.     We  cannot,  however,  discover  any   tokens  that  their 


152  THE  CANON 

notions  found  favour  in  wide  circles.  We  are  at  a  loss  to  place 
them.  But  what  does  the  remark  about  the  Epistles  of  Paul 
mean  ?  We  cannot  tell.  Nothing  of  that  kind  is  to  be  found 
elsewhere  attached  to  the  special  rejection  of  John.  It  is 
possible  that  the  thought  is  simply  a  conclusion  of  Irenaeus' : 
They  reject  the  spiritual  Gospel.  They  therefore  reject  spiritual 
gifts.  First  Corinthians  praises  spiritual  gifts.  Therefore — which, 
of  course,  would  not  in  the  least  follow  by  any  logical  necessity — 
these  people  reject  the  Apostle  Paul. 

If  those  two  sets  of  people  had  fewer  Gospels,  who  had  more  ? 
Here  again  we  are  eager  to  learn  of  some  new  Gospel.  We  shall 
be  disappointed :  "  But  those  who  are  from  Valentinus,  being 
again  beyond  all  fear,  bringing  forward  their  own  writings," — 
we  might  almost  say  concoctions ;  they  are  things  that  the 
Valentinians  have  "written  together,"  have  "scraped  together  in 
writing  "  for  themselves, — "  boast  that  they  have  more  than  the 
Gospels  themselves  are.  In  fact,  they  have  proceeded  to  such 
boldness,  that  they  call  that  which  was  written  by  them  not  very 
long  since  the  Gospel  of  truth,  which  does  not  agree  at  all  with 
the  Gospels  of  the  apostles,  so  that  they  cannot  even  have  a 
Gospel  without  blasphemy.  For  if  that  which  they  bring  forward 
is  the  Gospel  of  truth,  and  this  is  moreover  unlike  those  (Gospels) 
that  have  been  handed  down  to  us  by  the  apostles,  as  anyone 
who  cares  can  learn,  as  is  clear  from  the  Scriptures  themselves, 
then  that  which  is  handed  down  from  the  apostles  is  not  the 
Gospel  of  truth."  This  gives  us  nothing  new.  We  have  an 
inkling  of  the  state  of  the  case  with  the  Valentinians.  The 
Valentinians  had  and  used  our  four  Gospels.  They — or  some 
one  of  them — wrote  a  book  upon  the  ideas  of  their  system,  and 
they  unfortunately  took  a  fancy  to  call  it  a  Gospel.  So  far  as  we 
can  see,  they  did  not  for  a  moment  purpose  to  put  it  in  the  place 
of  any  one  of  the  Gospels  or  of  all  four  Gospels.  It  was  a  totally 
different  thing.  At  the  same  time  the  use  of  the  word  Gospel 
made  it  easy  for  Irenaeus  to  decry  their  action  in  the.  above  way. 
It  would  further  not  be  at  all  impossible  that  other  uninformed 
people,  and  let  us  concede  it,  even  some  less  informed  Valen- 
tinians, might  have  taken  the  title  Gospel  in  the  same  sense,  and 
have  supposed  that  the  book  was  meant  to  be  a  proper  Gospel. 
We  should  not  fail  to  observe  that  on  the  one  hand  this  use  of 
this  title  indicates  a  high  valuation  of  the  name  Gospel  in  the 


THE  AGE  OF   IREN^US— IREN^US  1 53 

circles  in  which  Valentinus  lived.  Far  more  important,  however, 
is  the  observation,  that  the  isolation  in  which  this  use  of  the 
word  by  the  Valentinians  stands  is  really,  if  I  mistake  not,  in 
itself  a  most  thorough  refutation  of  that  view  of  the  second 
century  and  of  our  Gospels,  which  represents  the  century,  and 
especially  the  former  half  of  it,  as  deluged  with  all  manner  of 
Gospels,  some  bad,  some  indifferent,  but  a  large  number  quite 
good,  which  Gospels  then  disappeared  of  a  sudden,  because  the 
Church  had  arbitrarily  settled  upon  our  present  four. 

Irenaeus'  high  appreciation  of  scripture,  and  that  of  the  New 
Testament  as  well  as  of  the  Old  Testament,  shines  forth  in  a  few 
sentences  (4.  33,  8)  which  we  shall  understand  better  when  we  some 
day  find  the  originaf  Greek  words  for  the  whole ;  now  we  have 
the  Greek  only  for  the  first  sixteen  words :  "True  knowledge" — 
Gnosis — "  is  the  teaching  of  the  apostles  and  the  ancient  system 
of  the  Church  through  all  the  world,  and  the  sign  of  the  body  of 
Christ  according  to  the  successions  of  the  bishops,  to  whom 
they  " — the  apostles — "  gave  over  the  Church  which  is  in  each 
single  place,  [and]  the  fullest  use  of  the  Scriptures  which  have 
reached  us  in  [careful]  custody  without  corruption,  consenting 
neither  to  addition  nor  to  subtraction,  and  the  text  "—reading — 
"  without  corruption,  and  the  legitimate  and  diligent  explanation 
according  to  the  Scriptures  both  without  peril  and  without 
blasphemy,  and  the  chief  duty  of  love,  which  is  more  precious 
than  knowledge,  more  glorious,  moreover,  than  prophecy,  and 
supereminently  above  all  the  rest  of  the  graces."  Here  we 
behold  as  one  of  the  main  points  of  right  Christian  knowledge 
the  most  extended  use  of  the  Scriptures.  These  Scriptures,  he 
says,  have  been  handed  down  to  us  in  watchful  care  "without 
fiction."  I  have  written  above  "  corruption  "  as  a  general  term. 
I  take  it  that  the  fiction  here  warded  off  is  on  the  one  hand  the 
fictitious  composition  of  new  books,  and  on  the  other  hand  the 
fictitious  or  corrupting  and  changing  or  mutilating  treatment  of 
known  books.  In  neither  case  does  true  knowledge  allow  of 
addition  or  of  curtailment.  The  following  sentence  has  at  least 
two  possible  senses.  It  may  mean  a  guarding  of  the  text  in  the 
books  from  falsification.  But  it  may  refer  to  the  reading  the 
Scriptures  in  church,  and  would  then  mean  that  the  reading  is  to 
be  a  direct  reading,  keeping  exactly  to  the  words  of  the  text,  not 
changing  or  paraphrasing  them.     If  that  sentence  refers  thus  to 


154  THE  CANON 

the  public  reading,  then  the  following  would  fit  well  with 
homiletic  commentating  on  the  text.  The  explanation  of  the 
text  must  be  legitimate  and  diligent,  without  running  into 
dangerous  questions  or  doctrines,  and  as  well  without  blasphemy ; 
but  it  must  above  all  be  according  to  the  scripture,  that  is  to  say, 
that  scripture  agrees  with  itself,  and  that  scripture  must  interpret 
scripture.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  opening  with  the  teaching  of 
the  apostles  and  the  closing  with  the  First  Corinthians'  view  of 
love,  compels  us  to  take  the  words  scripture  here  as  applying  to 
the  New  Testament  as  well  as  to  the  Old. 

Before  leaving  Irenaeus  we  must  read  a  few  words  that 
Eusebius  has  saved  for  us  from  the  close  of  one  of  his  books. 
It  was  that  book  About  the  Eight  that,  as  we  saw  above,  he  sent 
to  the  heretical  friend  Florinus  who  had  turned  Valentinian. 
Eusebius  writes :  "  At  which  place,  at  the  end  of  the  book, 
having  found  a  lovely  note  of  his,  we  must  of  necessity  add  it 
here  in  this  book.  It  reads  thus  :  I  adjure  thee  who  dost  copy 
this  book  by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  by  His  glorious  coming, 
in  which  He  comes  to  judge  living  and  dead,  that  thou  compare 
what  thou  copiest,  and  that  thou  correct  it  carefully,  according 
to  this  original,  from  which  thou  hast  copied  it,  and  that  thou 
likewise  copy  off  this  oath  and  put  it  in  your  copy"  (H.  E.  5.  20). 
It  was  a  much  too  small  matter  for  the  use  of  the  oath  by  Christ 
and  His  glorious  coming,  but  that  lay  in  the  method  of  thought 
of  these  dreamy  and  fiery  representatives  of  an  apocalyptic  cast 
of  Christianity. 

Irenaeus  has  done  well  by  us.  He  has  given  us  a  most  full 
use  of  the  New  Testament,  quoting  even  the  book  of  Acts  at 
great  length.  And  he  has  discussed  for  us  in  a  very  welcome 
manner  the  state  of  the  question  as  to  the  valuation  of  the 
Gospels  in  his  day.  It  is  true  he  writes  in  the  years  between  181 
and  189,  but  his  view  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  is  not 
one  that  he  first  conceived  of  while  writing.  His  view  of  the  case 
in  the  year  155  was  probably  precisely  the  same. 

We  have,  it  is  true,  thus  far  moved  freely  and  far  in  the 
Church  and  in  the  Roman  Empire,  passing  repeatedly  from 
Syria  in  the  East  to  Gaul  in  the  West.  Nevertheless  we  have  to 
a  great  extent  had  more  to  do  with  the  Greek  language  and 
with  Greek  writers  than  with  other  languages  and  with  those  who 
used  them.     The  question  arises  whether  or  not  we  can  find  at 


THE  AGE  OF  IREN^US— SYRIA  1 55 

this  early  time  witnesses  from  some  of  the  other  literatures,  from 
Churches  using  other  languages.  I  personally  am  inclined  to 
think  that  we  can.  Others  think  not.  Let  us  begin  with  Syria. 
When  did  Christianity  gain  a  foothold  in  Syria?  Remember  the 
character  of  Antioch  in  Syria  as  a  second  capital  of  the  Empire, 
with  the  wealth  and  the  trade  of  Syria  pouring  into  it,  and  with 
an  important  university.  Consider,  further,  the  Christian  con- 
stellation there,  and  the  part  played  by  Antioch  as  a  starting-point 
for  mission  journeys.  Barnabas,  Paul,  Peter,  and  how  many 
other  eminent  Christians  of  that  time  we  know  not,  spent  much 
time  there.  Of  course  the  city  was  largely  Greek,  but  the  Syrian 
element  was  not,  could  not  be,  lacking. 

The  free  intercourse  between  Palestine  and  Antioch  was 
shown  distinctly  at  the  time  of  the  questionings  about  Gentile 
and  Jewish  Christians  that  found  a  solution  on  the  occasion 
of  the  visit  of  a  committee  headed  by  Barnabas  and  Paul  to  the 
mother  Church  at  Jerusalem.  Now  the  very  fact  of  the  occurrence 
of  such  a  question  at  Antioch,  and  the  circumstance  that  Paul  at 
Antioch  openly  reproved  Peter  for  changing  his  habit  of  life  at 
the  coming  of  certain  Jewish  Christians  from  Jerusalem,  seem  to 
point  to  the  presence  there  of  at  least  a  number  of  Aramaic- 
speaking  Christians.  Their  Aramaic,  if  they  came  from  Jerusalem, 
was  closely  related  to  the  language  of  the  north,  for  it  had  come 
from  there.  It  seems  to  me  then  in  every  way  probable  that 
at  that  early  date,  speaking  roughly,  before  the  year  70,  there 
were  in  Antioch  Aramaic-speaking  Christians.  Edessa  was  not 
far  from  Antioch,  not  as  far  from  Antioch  as  Damascus  was. 
Nisibis  was  not  far,  not  as  far  again  beyond  Edessa.  If  we 
should  go  down  towards  the  south-east,  Babylon  was  not  three 
times  as  far  from  Antioch  as  Damascus  was.  Enough  of  that 
about  distances.  We  find  a  reference  to  Peter's  being  at  Babylon. 
It  is  the  custom  with  some  scholars  to  insist  upon  it  that  that 
was  Rome  and  not  Babylon.  To  me  it  appears  to  be  only 
reasonable  to  suppose  that  Peter  and  other  Christians  who  spoke 
Aramaic  did  some  mission  work,  going  out  from  Antioch  to 
Edessa,  Nisibis,  and,  we  add  because  it  really  is  named  for  Peter 
himself,  to  Babylon. 

I  have  no  doubt,  although  I  have  not  a  word  about  it  in  books, 
that  there  were  Syrian  Christians  in  Syria  itself  in  the  three  cities 
named,  before  the  death  of  Paul.     If  anyone  chooses  to  put  it 


156  THE  CANON 

all  thirty  years  later,  he  will  have  Christians  there  in  the  year  100. 
The  next  wing  in  this  castle  in  the  air  is  the  statement  that  these 
Syrian  Christians  of  the  year  70,  or  even  of  the  year  100,  may  be 
supposed  by  the  year  150,  or  at  latest  170,  to  have  reached  such 
a  number,  and  to  have  attained  so  much  education  and  so  much 
insight  into  the  value  of  the  Greek  Gospels  and  Epistles,  as  to  have 
made  not  merely  verbal,  but  also  written  translations  of  them. 
In  spite  of  the  lack  of  external  testimony,  I  regard  the  opinion 
that  the  Syriac  version  of  the  bulk  of  the  New  Testament  books 
was  in  existence,  say  in  the  year  170,  to  be  a  very  modest  one. 
So  far  as  we  can  tell,  this  Old  Syriac  translation  contained  all  the 
books  of  our  New  Testament  except  the  Revelation  and  the  four 
Episdes,  Second  and  Third  John,  Second  Peter  and  Jude.  The 
Revelation  was  at  that  time  chiefly  used  in  the  West.  Second 
and  Third  John  were  more  private  letters,  and  Second  Peter  was 
scarcely  generally  known  before  the  close  of  the  third  century. 
That  Jude  should  be  missing  seems  strange. 

The  Old  Latin  translation  arose  probably  in  North  Africa. 
Rome  and  Southern  Italy  in  Christian  circles  were  too  thoroughly 
Greek  at  first  to  need  a  Latin  text.  It  appears  to  have  been 
made  at  or  soon  after  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  and  to 
have  been  used,  for  example,  by  the  translator  of  Irenseus. 
TertuUian,  who  began  to  write  at  least  in  the  year  190,  tells  us 
that  before  the  close  of  the  second  century  the  Christians  filled 
the  palace,  the  senate,  the  forum,  and  the  camp.  I  think  we  may 
count  upon  the  existence  of  this  translation  as  early  as  the  year 
1 70  at  the  least.  It  seems  to  have  contained  the  four  Gospels, 
the  book  of  Acts,  thirteen  Epistles  of  Paul,  First  Peter,  First, 
Second,  and  Third  John,  Jude,  and  Revelation.  Perhaps  it 
included  Hebrews,  with  the  name  of  Barnabas  as  author,  or 
without  a  name  at  all.  James  and  Second  Peter  do  not  show 
themselves.  We  may  remark,  that  First  Peter  does  not  seem  to 
have  been  read  much  in  the  Latin  Churches.  It  does  not,  how- 
ever, appear  to  have  been  called  in  question. 

The  Coptic  translations  I  am  inclined  to  date  also  from  the 
last  quarter  of  the  second  century,  but  some  Coptic  scholars  think 
them  to  be  much  later. 

When  we  find  that  the  Syrian  and  Old  Latin  and  Coptic 
witnesses  are  more  rare  and  less  profuse  in  the  second  century 
than  the  Greek  witnesses,  we  should  never  fail  to  recall  the  cir- 


THE  AGE  OF   IREN^US— OLD   LATIN  I  57 

cumstance,  that  the  persistence  and  preservation  of  the  latter 
witnesses  by  no  means  forces  or  even  permits  us,  then,  to  conclude 
from  the  present  lack  of  the  former  witnesses,  that  Christianity 
did  not  flourish  in  those  lands  under  those  races,  and  that  there 
were  no  written  monuments  in  those  tongues.  Greek  was  the 
common  language  then,  and  the  number  of  people  who  spoke, 
read,  and  wrote  Greek  was,  it  is  true,  very  large.  This  had  its 
effect  upon  the  number  of  books  that  were  written  in  Greek. 
Whoever  wished  to  reach  a  wide  circle  of  readers  was  impelled  to 
write  Greek.  And  this  had  its  effect  also  upon  the  number  of 
Greek  books  that  were  preserved.  A  greater  number  of  people 
took  an  interest  in  Greek  books,  and  cared  to  have  them  copied 
off  and  handed  down.  That  seems  to  me  to  be  quite  certain. 
Nevertheless,  I  do  not  in  the  least  doubt  that  from  a  very  early 
date,  possibly  not  only  in  Syria  but  also  in  Northwestern  Africa 
and  in  Egypt,  there  were  many  Christians,  and  at  least  a  few 
Christian  writings.  But  Syriac  and  Old  Latin  and  Coptic 
Christian  writings  were  on  the  one  hand  less,  much  less,  plentiful 
than  Greek  Christian  writings,  because  there  were  not  so  many 
people  who  could  read  them,  and  who  therefore  would  order  them 
to  be  copied  off.  These  writings  were  in  the  next  place,  by 
reason  of  the  limited  range  of  their  circulation,  not  so  well  pre- 
pared by  the  survival  of  chance  copies  in  one  place  and  another 
to  outlive  the  general  vicissitudes  of  literature.  In  the  third 
place,  the  separatistical  movements  in  those  Churches  did  much 
to  sever  their  few  books  from  the  use  of  the  Church.  And  in 
the  fourth  place  the  political  turmoils,  with  the  attendant  destruc- 
tion of  cities  and  libraries,  committed  much  greater  havoc  among 
these  limited  books  and  places ;  this  is  the  reverse  of  the  second 
point.  Could  we  imagine  that  the  centre  of  Christianity  for  the 
time  from  Paul's  first  missionary  journey  down  to  the  year  350 
had  been  in  Babylon,  or  even  in  Edessa  or  in  Nisibis,  we  should 
certainly  have  had  a  far  different  literary  Christian  harvest  from 
those  years.  More  would  have  been  written  in  Syrian,  and  more 
would  have  been  preserved. 

We  are  nearing  the  close  of  the  second  century.  The  Age 
of  Irenaeus  closes  with  the  year  200.  It  is  pertinent  at  this  point 
to  take  a  review  of  what  we  have  thus  far  seen.  At  this  time  we 
find  in  the  hands  of  the  Church,  in  the  hands  of  the  larger 
number  of  great  Churches  upon  the  usual  lines  of  travel,  the 


158  THE  CANON 

larger  part  of  the  New  Testament  books.     The  four  Gospels,  the 
book  of  Acts,  the  First  Epistle  of  Peter,  the  First  Epistle  of  John, 
thirteen  Epistles  of  Paul,  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  and  the  book 
of  Revelation.     It  is  not  strange  that  in  one  place  or  another  the 
scanty  amount  of  Christian  literature  does  not  supply  us  with  a 
sign  of  life  for  one  book  or  another.     That  is  not  necessary. 
When  we  are  doubly  and  triply  assured,  from  the  letter  of  Clement 
of  Rome  from  the  year  96,  that  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  was 
then  known,  valued,  and  almost  learnt  by  heart  by  an  eminent 
and  ready  writer  in  the  capital  of  the  Empire,  it  really  does  not 
make  very  much  difference  to  us  if  we  find  that  one  man  or 
another  towards  the  close  of  the  century  has  failed  to  use  that 
book  in  what  is  preserved  to  us  of  his  writings.     When  we  find 
that  that  same  Clement  of  Rome  in  the  year  96  uses  the  Epistle 
of  James,  and  that  Hermas  the  brother  of  the  Roman  bishop 
Pius  uses  it  profusely  about  the  year  140,  we  know  surely  that  it 
was  at  home  at  Rome  early  and  late  in  this  period,  and  it  is  a 
matter  of  supreme  indifference  to  us  when  this  short  letter  fails 
to  put  in  an  appearance  in  one  writer  or  another  in  between  or 
later.     Those  authors  did  not  write  in  the  first  place  chiefly  for 
the  purpose  of  telling  us  what  books  they  had  in  their  New 
Testament.     We  must  here,  then,  observe  that  the  series  of  books 
named  above  does  not  present  itself  to  us  at  the  close  of  this  age 
of  Irenaeus  as  a  new  thing.     The  fact  is,  that  no  single  sign  has 
been  found  that  any  book  has  been  added  to  the  list  during  this 
period.     On  the  contrary,  from  the  first  to  the  last  every  Christian 
writer  and  even  the  heretical  ones  are  clearly  of  the  opinion  tha| 
the  writings  which  we  now  have,  and  which  they  then  received  or 
rejected,  were  on  hand  long  before  that  time.     If  Marcion  re- 
jected Matthew,  Mark,  and  John,  it  was  not  because  they  were 
young,   but  because  they  did  not  suit  him.     He  rejected  the 
books  of  the  Old  Testament  which  he  acknowledged  to  be  still 
older.     He  rejected  the  Creator  God  not  because  He  was  a  young 
God,  but  because  according  to  the  history  of  Israel  He  was  a  bad 
God,  cruel,  brutal,  and  bloodthirsty. 

We  have  from  this  period,  probably  from  the  year  196,  an 
interesting  example  of  the  way  m  which  the  Churches  passed 
letters  from  one  to  another.  Eusebius  relates  (H.  E.  5.  25)  that 
the  Palestinian  bishops  Narcissus  and  Theophilus,  and  with  them 
Cassius,  bishop  of  Tyre,  and  Clarus,  bishop  of  Ptolemaeis,  had 


THE  AGE  OF  IREN^US— TRADITION  I  59 

a  meeting  with  others  to  pass  resolutions  about  the  apostolical 
tradition  touching  the  celebration  of  Easter.  "  At  the  close  of 
the  writing " — that  is  to  say,  of  the  utterance  of  these  bishops, 
and  that  probably  determined  especially  by  the  skilled  and  prac- 
tical writer  Theophilus  of  Csesarea — "they  add  to  their  words 
the  following :  Try  to  distribute  copies  of  our  letters  to  each 
Church,  so  that  we  may  not  be  guilty  in  respect  to  those  who 
recklessly  let  their  own  souls  go  astray.  And  we  make  known 
to  you  that  at  Alexandria  they  celebrate  on  the  same  day  on 
which  we  celebrate.  For  letters  have  reached  them  from  us 
and  us  from  them.  So  that  we  celebrate  the  holy  day  with  one 
voice  and  together."  These  letters  about  Easter  are  a  premoni- 
tion of  the  later  following  Festal  Epistles  of  the  patriarch  of 
Alexandria  announcing  the  proper  day  for  Easter.  And  the 
distribution  of  the  letters  Church  by  Church  shows  how  readily 
then  written  material  could  be  produced  and  sent  about  among 
Christians. 

The  Possibilities  of  Tradition. 

We  have  now  reached,  naming  the  year  190  as  doubtless 
later  than  the  composition  of  Irenaeus'  great  work  against  the 
heresies,  a  date  that  is  about  one  hundred  and  sixty  years  distant 
from  the  death  of  Jesus,  one  hundred  and  twenty-six  years  from 
the  death  of  Paul,  and  perhaps  a  little  over  ninety  years  from  the 
death  of  John,  probably  not  ninety  years  from  the  death  of  Simon 
the  son  of  Clopas,  who  was  possibly  born  about  the  same  time 
as  Jesus.  We  have  repeatedly  taken  occasion  to  call  attention 
to  the  way  in  which  a  long  life  has  made  a  bridge  for  us  between 
extremely  distant  points  of  time.  Now  we  shall  do  another 
thing.  The  long  lives  of  which  we  have  spoken  have  in  part 
come  to  our  notice  more  by  chance  than  by  any  necessity  of  the 
historical  recital,  in  that  some  small  incident,  like  Irenaeus'  need 
of  writing  to  the  heretical  friend  of  his  youth,  has  called  forth 
the  story.  Now  I  wish  to  say  a  word  or  two  about  tradition 
in  general,  and  to  point  to  the  possibilities  of  tradition,  taking 
examples  from  modern  life.  I  wish  to  show  the  possibility  of  a 
much  more  compact  and  far-reaching  net  covering  this  early  field 
of  Christian  history. 

Let  me  begin  with  a  soldier,  Friedrich  Weger,  who  in  1901 


l6o  THE  CANON 

tvas  living  at  Breslau  eighty-nine  years  old,  still  fresh  and  hale 
in  body  and  mind.  He  was  born  in  1812,  served  in  the  years 
1834-1836,  and  took  part  in  a  parade  before  the  Prussian  King 
Friedrich  Wilhelm  iii.  and  the  Russian  Emperor  Nicholas  i. 
sixty-one  years  before  1901. — Another  veteran  celebrated  in 
sound  health  his  hundredth  birthday  on  March  14th,  1901. 
His  name  was  Hermann  Wellemeyer,  and  he  was  a  house- 
carpenter  in  Lengerich  in  Westphalia.  He  served  in  the  years 
1823-1825,  but  he  remembered  distinctly  the  marching  of  the 
French  and  Russian  and  Prussian  troops  through  Lengerich,  and 
the  general  joy  at  the  victory  over  Napoleon  at  Leipzig  in  18 13. — 
In  the  year  1899  there  were  living  in  Silesia  in  Schwientochlowitz 
a  working  woman  named  Penkalla  who  was  one  hundred  and 
four  years  old,  and  in  Domnowitz  the  widow  of  a  veteran,  Rosina 
Nowack,  who  was  one  hundred  and  seven  years  old,  and  who 
told  with  pleasure  what  she  had  seen  as  a  child. — And  in 
the  year  1904,  Andreas  Nicolaievitch  Schmidt,  a  former  orderly 
sergeant,  was  still  living  at  Tiflis  and  able  to  go  about  by  himself, 
although  he  was  one  hundred  and  twenty-two  years  old.  He 
fought  in  181 2  at  Borodino,  and  was  wounded  in  1854  at 
Sebastopol.  In  1858  he  was  sent  to  Siberia  because  he  had 
let  a  political  prisoner  escape. — In  a  parenthesis  the  curious 
case  may  be  mentioned  of  Sir  Stephen  Fox's  daughters.  He 
married  in  1654,  and  his  first  child,  a  daughter,  was  born  and 
died  in  1655,  three  years  before  the  death  of  Cromwell.  After 
losing  several  married  children,  he  married  late  in  life,  and  his 
youngest  daughter  was  born  in  1727,  seventy-two  years  after  her 
oldest  sister.  This  daughter  lived  ninety-eight  years,  and  died  in 
1825,  when  Queen  Victoria  was  six  years  old.  Thus  there  passed 
one  hundred  and  seventy  years  between  the  deaths  of  these  two 
sisters. 

But  it  may  be  objected  that  these  are  all  isolated  cases. 
Of  course  they  are.  Yet  such  isolated  cases  are  occurring  all 
over  the  world.  In  many  cases  it  is  the  merest  accident  that 
brings  such  an  old  man  to  public  notice. — In  the  year  1875, 
referring  to  the  sixtieth  anniversary  of  the  battle  of  Waterloo,  the 
Times  newspaper  in  London  gave  the  names  of  seve?ity-six 
Waterloo  officers  who  were  still  alive. — A  man  named  Johann 
Leonhard  Roder,  who  was  at  the  battle  of  Waterloo  as  a  boy  of 
fifteen,  was  still  living  at  Quincy,  Illinois,  in  January  1907. — In 


THE  AGE  OF   IREN.^US— TRADITION  l6l 

the  year  1899,  King  Albert  of  Saxony  celebrated  at  Dresden  the 
fiftieth  anniversary  of  his  first  battle  on  the  13th  of  April  1849. 
At  that  celebration  there  were  drawn  up  before  him,  in  the  park 
of  his  villa  at  Strehlen  near  Dresden,  seven  hufidred  veterans 
from  that  year  1849.  They  were  all  more  than  seventy  years 
old.  The  king's  military  instructor,  the  oldest  orderly  sergeant, 
named  Schurig,  was  there  eighty-five  years  old  and  gave  a  toast 
to  the  king  at  lunch.  There  were  seven  hundred  men  whose 
memory  as  grown  men  reached  back  fifty  and  largely  more  years. 
Two  such  men  would  stretch  over  more  than  a  century. 

The  most  interesting  case  that  I  know  of  is  connected  with 
Yale  College.  In  the  year  1888  a  clergyman  named  Joseph 
Dresser  Wickham,  who  was  in  his  ninety-second  year  and  still 
hearty  in  body  and  mind,  was  at  the  Alumni  meeting.  He  had 
entered  college  at  fifteen,  in  the  year  181 1.  In  that  year  181 1 
he  saw  and  heard  an  alumnus  who  had  left  college  in  1734, 
seventy-seven  years  before.  That  alumnus  was  twenty-six  years 
old  when  he  left  Yale,  and  was  one  hundred  and  three  years  old 
when  Wickham  saw  him  in  181 1.  In  the  year  17 16,  eighteen 
years  before  that  alumnus  left  Yale,  and  when  he  was  a  boy 
eight  years  old,  the  college  was  moved  from  Saybrook  to  New 
Haven.  The  changing  the  place  for  the  college  caused  much 
stir  and  excitement,  and  the  eight-year-old  boy  remembered  the 
change  very  well.  Thus  two  men  carried  a  tradition  of  a  special 
occurrence  over  the  space  of  one  hundred  and  seventy-two  years. 
Should  we  put  that  back  into  the  second  century,  Irenaeus  the 
bishop  could  reach  from  the  year  178  back  to  the  sixth  year  of 
our  Lord.  Irenceus  at  the  year  150  would  reach  back  to  22  b.c. 
Justin  the  martyr,  who  was  no  longer  young  in  the  year  150, 
would  also  reach  back  to  22  B.C.  Do  not  forget  Simon  the  son 
of  Clopas  dying  a  martyr  at  one  hundred  and  twenty  years. 
And  if  ninety-two  and  one  hundred  and  three  are  rare  old  ages, 
eighty  and  eighty  are  less  rare,  and  eighty  and  eighty  make,  from 
the  twentieth  year  of  each,  one  hundred  and  twenty  years. 
Observe,  however,  the  single  persons.  One  of  the  alumni 
reached  back  seventy-seven  years  with  his  memory,  the  other 
ninety-five  years.  Take  again  the  year  150  for  Irenseus  and  the 
older  Justin.  Seventy-seven  years  would  carry  them  back  to  the 
year  73,  and  ninety-five  years  to  the  year  55. 

It  is  furthermore  not  to  be  forgotten  that  that  time  was  a 
II 


l62  THE  CANON 

time  at  which  tradition  was  cultivated  in  a  much  higher  style 
than  it  is  to-day.  They  did  not  have  our  newspapers  and 
chronicles  and  books.  Tradition  was  almost  all  they  had, 
and  they  were  used  to  thinking  of  it.  They  practised  it  care- 
fully. They  narrated.  They  listened.  They  studied  it  over. 
They  told  it  then  to  younger  men.  Now  I  wish  to  lay  stress 
upon  two  things.  In  the  first  place,  we  know  very  well  of  a 
number  of  lines  of  tradition,  for  example  the  grandson  of  Jude, 
Simon  the  son  of  Clopas,  the  daughters  of  Philip  the  evangelist 
who  had  seen  Paul  for  several  days  at  their  father's  house  in 
Caesarea,  and  whom  Polycarp  saw  at  Hierapolis,  and  Polycarp 
himself  who  probably  saw  John.  That  is  enough  for  the 
moment.  In  the  second  place,  however,  if  we  are  scientific 
enough  to  consider  the  whole  growing  Church  from  Jerusalem 
and  Antioch  to  Ephesus  and  Smyrna  and  Thessalonica  and 
Corinth  and  Rome  and  Vienne  and  Lyons  in  Gaul,  and  to 
conjure  up  to  ourselves  the  occasional  Christian  societies  in 
countless  places  in  between, — if  we  consider  this  large  field,  and 
I  shall  now  not  say  the  possibility,  but  the  necessity  of  there 
having  been  many  men  and  women  of  seventy  and  eighty,  and 
some  men  and  women  of  ninety  overlapping  each  other,  we  shall 
be  ready  to  concede  that  the  course  of  Christian  tradition  has 
not  been  in  the  least  a  frail  and  weak  passage  from  Paul  to 
Irenseus,  from  John  to  Clement  of  Alexandria.  A  judicial  view 
of  the  field — the  writer  of  any  given  statement  is  always  to  his 
own  way  of  thinking  judicial — will  refuse  to  suppose  that  at 
Antioch  (Alexandria?),  Smyrna,  Corinth,  and  Rome,  as  repre- 
sentatives of  great  provinces  of  Christianity,  there  were  any  gaps 
in  the  living  and  seething  life  of  the  Church  between  Paul  and 
Irenaeus. 

Testimony  for  Separate  Books. — Matthew. 

In  approaching  thus  the  year  200,  what  have  we  before  us 
in  the  way  of  clear  use  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament? 
We  have  in  advance  presupposed  that  the  most  of  them  were  in 
existence,  and  where  we  do  not  hear  of  anything  to  the  contrary, 
anything  that  excludes  their  early  existence  and  proves  their 
later  composition,  we  go  upon  the  theory  that  they  are  in  use. 
Nevertheless,   what  do  we    positively  and   directly  know  about 


THE  AGE  OF   IREN^US— MATTHEW  163 

their  use  before  the  year  185,  before  Irenasus'  great  work? 
Let  us  take  up  the  books.  The  Gospel  according  to  Matthew 
was  quoted  apparently  in  the  Great  Declaration  written  by  Simon 
Magus  or  by  some  close  pupil  of  his.  Hippolytus  (6.  16)  gives 
the  words  thus :  "  For  somewhere  near,  he  says,  is  the  axe  to  the 
roots  of  the  tree.  Every  tree,  he  says,  not  bearing  good  fruit,  is 
cut  down  and  cast  into  the  fire."  No  one  will  be  surprised  that 
he  quoted  loosely.  We  have  seen  how  loosely  good  Christians 
quoted,  and  Simon  Magus  could  not  be  expected  to  be  more 
careful  than  they.  For  the  followers  of  Cerinthus,  and  it  doubt- 
less holds  good  also  for  Cerinthus  himself,  Epiphanius  tells  us 
(28.  5)  directly  that  they  used  this  Gospel.  He  says  :  "  For  they 
use  the  Gospel  according  to  Matthew  in  part  and  not  the  whole 
of  it,  because  of  the  birth  list  according  to  the  flesh  " ;  and  again 
(30.  14):  "For  Cerinthus  and  Carpocrates  using  for  themselves, 
it  is  true,  the  same  Gospel,  prove  from  the  beginning  of  the 
Gospel  according  to  Matthew  by  the  birth  list  that  the  Christ 
was  of  the  seed  of  Joseph  and  Mary."  He  may  well  have 
had  a  Gospel  with  a  different  reading  in  the  first  chapter  of 
Matthew. 

The  Ophites  also  used  this  Gospel.  "  This,  they  say,  is  what 
is  spoken  (Hippolytus,  5.  8  ;  p.  160  [i  13]) :  Every  tree  not  making 
good  fruit  is  cut  down  and  cast  into  fire.  For  these  fruits,  they 
say,  are  only  the  reasonable,  the  living  men,  who  come  in  through 
the  third  gate."  From  the  seventh  chapter  they  quote  (5.  8 ; 
p.  160  [114]):  "This,  they  say,  is  what  he  saith  :  Cast  not  that 
which  is  holy  to  the  dogs,  nor  the  pearls  to  the  swine,  saying  that 
the  words  about  swine  and  dogs  are  the  intercourse  of  a  woman 
with  a  man."  And  again  from  the  same  chapter,  turning  the 
words  around  in  memory  (5.  8;  p.  166  [116]):  "About  these 
things,  they  say,  the  Saviour  spoke  expressly :  That  narrow  and 
strait  is  the  way  leading  to  life,  and  few  are  those  entering  in 
to  it ;  but  broad  and  roomy  is  the  way  that  leads  to  destruction, 
and  many  are  they  that  pass  through  by  it."  And  still  from 
the  same  chapter  (5.  8;  p.  158  [112])  "And  again,  they  say,  the 
Saviour  said :  Not  everyone  saying  to  me.  Lord,  Lord,  shall 
enter  into  the  kingdom  of  the  heavens,  but  he  that  doeth  the 
will  of  My  Father  which  is  in  the  heavens."  They  give  (5.  8; 
p.  160  [i  13])  the  parable  of  the  Sower  from  the  thirteenth  chapter 
just  as  anybody  might  quote  it  from  memory;  "And  this,  they 


l64  THE  CANON 

say,  is  what  is  spoken :  The  one  sowing  went  forth  to  sow. 
And  some  fell  by  the  wayside  and  was  trodden  down,  and  some 
on  rocky  ground,  and  sprang  up,  they  say,  and  because  it  had 
no  depth  withered  away  and  died.  And  some  fell,  they  say,  on 
good  and  fit  ground,  and  made  fruit,  one  a  hundred,  another 
sixty,  another  thirty.  He  that  hath  ears,  they  say,  to  hear,  let 
him  hear."  One  of  their  quotations  brings  a  quite  intelligible 
loose  combination  or  confusing  of  two  verses  in  the  same  thir- 
teenth chapter.  It  is  a  capital  specimen  of  a  wild  quotation 
(5.  8;  p.  152  [108]):  "This,  they  say,  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
lying  within  you  like  a  treasure,  like  leaven  hid  in  three  measures 
of  meal." 

Just  of  the  same  kind  is  the  following  from  the  twenty-third 
chapter  (5.  8;  p.  158  [112]) :  "This,  they  say,  is  that  which  was 
spoken :  Ye  are  whitened  tombs,  filled,  they  say,  within  with 
dead  bones,  because  the  living  man  is  not  in  you."  And  there- 
upon they  recur  to  the  twenty-seventh  chapter :  "  And  again, 
they  say,  the  dead  shall  go  forth  from  the  graves,  that  is  to  say, 
the  spiritual,  not  the  fleshly  ones,  being  born  again  from  the 
earthly  bodies."  The  Sethians  quote  from  the  tenth  chapter 
(5.  21 ;  p.  212  [146]) :  "This  is,  they  say,  that  which  is  spoken: 
I  came  not  to  cast  peace  upon  the  earth,  but  a  sword."  Basilides 
knew  this  Gospel.  It  is  the  merest  chance  that  the  little  we  have 
from  him  touches  Matthew,  just  touches  it.  He  was  speaking  of 
everything  having  its  own  time  (7.  27;  p.  376  [243]),  and 
mentioned  thereat :  "  the  wise  men  who  beheld  the  star."  How 
easily  could  he  have  failed  to  use  that  example,  or  could 
Hippolytus  have  failed  to  quote  the  five  words !  The  so-called 
letter  of  Barnabas  uses,  as  was  mentioned  above,  the  technical 
phrase  "  it  is  written  "  for  a  quotation  from  this  Gospel  (ch.  4) : 
"  Let  us  give  heed,  lest,  as  it  is  written,  we  should  be  found  :  Many 
are  called,  but  few  are  chosen."  These  words  might  have  been, 
yes,  they  may  have  been  a  common  proverb  in  the  time  of  Jesus, 
and  the  author  of  this  letter  could  have  quoted  them  as  a  well- 
known  everyday  proverb.  But  he  does  not  do  that.  He  quotes 
them  as  scripture,  and  doubtless  has  Matthew  in  view.  When  he 
writes  (ch.  19) :  "  Thou  shalt  not  approach  unto  prayer  with  an  evil 
conscience,"  he  may  have  the  words  of  Jesus  in  Matthew  in  his 
mind,  but  it  is  not  necessary  that  he  should.  His  words  (ch.  19): 
"  Thou  shalt  not  hesitate  to  give,  nor  when  thou  givest  shalt  thou 


THE   AGE  OF   IREN^US— MATTHEW  1 65 

murmur ;  but  thou  shalt  know  who  is  the  good  payer  back  of  the 
reward,"  looks  very  much  like  a  reference  to  the  sixth  chapter  of 
Matthew.  He  quotes  Matthew,  but  takes  a  curious  View  of  the 
apostles  when  he  writes  (ch.  5) :  "And  when  He  chose  His  own 
disciples,  who  were  going  to  preach  His  gospel,  they  being  beyond 
all  sin  the  most  lawless  ones,  that  He  might  show  that  He  did  not 
come  to  call  righteous  but  sinners,  then  He  manifested  Himself  to 
be  a  Son  of  God."  One  of  his  short  summing-ups  (ch.  7)  seems 
to  have  Matthew's  account  of  the  trial  before  Pilate  as  a  basis : 
"  And  they  shall  say  :  Is  not  this  the  one  whom  we  once  crucified, 
deriding  and  piercing  and  spitting  (upon  Him)?  In  truth  this 
was  the  one  who  then  said  that  He  Himself  was  a  Son  of 
God." 

We  have  very  little  of  what  Valentinus  wrote,  and  neverthe- 
less Clement  of  Alexandria  (Strom.  2.  20.  114)  has,  as  men  say, 
happened  to  save  up  for  us  a  beautiful  passage  from  him  which 
gives  us  a  few  words  from  Matthew.  Valentinus  quotes  and  then 
comments  upon  the  thought.  I  give  his  first  sentence  and  then 
a  later  sentence  which  appears  to  show  us  what  his  text  was 
here,  what  reading  he  had :  "  And  one  is  good,  whose  revelation 
was  openly  through  the  Son ;  and  through  Him  alone  could  the 
heart  become  clean,  every  evil  spirit  being  thrust  out  of  the 
heart.  ...  In  this  manner  also  the  heart  so  long  as  it  does  not 
reach  wisdom,  being  impure,  being  the  dwelling-place  of  many 
demons ;  but  when  the  only  good  Father  turns  His  eyes  upon  it, 
it  is  made  holy  and  beams  with  light ;  and  he  is  blessed  who 
has  such  a  heart,  for  he  shall  see  God."  Is  not  that  beautiful  ? 
And  it  tells  us  that  Valentinus  knew  and  valued  Matthew. 

Epiphanius  (^^.  8)  has  given  us  some  quotations  from 
Ptolemaeus,  Valentinus'  disciple,  including  a  letter  written  to  a 
Christian  woman  named  Flora ;  and  in  this  he  shows  clearly  that 
he  uses  Matthew.  Ptolemaeus  is  explaining  the  state  of  the  Law 
to  Flora :  "  Thus,  therefore,  also  the  law  confessed  to  be  God's 
is  divided  into  three  parts,  on  the  one  hand  into  that  which  was 
fulfilled  by  the  Saviour ;  for  the  word  :  Thou  shalt  not  kill,  thou 
shalt  not  commit  adultery,  thou  shalt  not  swear  falsely,  is  com- 
prised in  the  neither  being  angry,  nor  lusting  after,  nor  swearing. 
And  it  is  divided  into  that  which  is  finally  done  away  with.  For 
the  word :  Eye  for  eye  and  tooth  for  tooth,  being  woven  about 
with  unrighteousness  and  having  itself  something  of  unrighteous- 


1 66  THE  CANON 

ness,  was  annulled  by  the  Saviour  by  the  opposites.  And  the 
opposites  annul  each  other :  For  I  say  unto  you,  Resist  not  evil 
at  all.  But  if  any  one  strike  thee  upon  the  cheek,  turn  to  him 
also  the  other  cheek."  There  we  have  both  a  quotation  from 
Matthew  and  a  summary  based  upon  Matthew.  And  the 
same  text  that  we  found  above  in  Valentinus  is  used  again  by 
Ptolemaeus  in  this  letter,  saying :  "  And  if  the  perfect  God  is 
good  according  to  His  own  nature,  as  He  is, — for  the  Saviour 
declared  to  us  that  one  alone  is  the  good  God,  His  own  Father, — 
then  the  one  of  the  opposite  nature  is  characterised  not  only  as 
bad,  but  also  as  wicked  in  unrighteousness." 

For  another  of  Valentinus'  pupils,  the  very  little  known 
Heracleon,  we  have  in  Origen's  commentary  (13.  59)  on  John  a 
pair  of  sentences  that  point  to  Matthew.  In  one  he  uses  the 
phrase :  "  Supposing  that  both  body  and  soul  are  destroyed  in 
hell."  In  the  other :  "  He  thinks  that  the  destruction  of  the 
men  of  the  Demiurge  is  made  plain  in  the  words :  The  sons  of 
the  kingdom  shall  go  out  into  outer  darkness." 

Among  the  many  who  indulged  in  the  fancies  of  Valentinus' 
system  was  a  man  named  Mark,  apparently  a  Syrian,  and  his 
followers,  who  were  called  Marcosians.  They  are  said  to  have 
written  spurious  Gospels.  Yet  it  is  plain  that  they  used  and 
treasured  highly  our  four  Gospels.  For  Matthew  we  may  take 
the  following  which  Irenaeus  brings  from  them  (i.  20.  2):  "And 
to  the  one  saying  to  Him  :  Good  teacher,  He  confessed  the  truly 
good  God,  saying  :  Why  dost  thou  call  Me  good  ?  One  is  good, 
the  Father  in  the  heavens.  And  they  say  that  the  heavens  are  now 
called  the  Eons."  Again  Irenaeus  writes  :  "  And  because  He  did 
not  answer  to  those  who  said  to  Him  :  With  what  authority  doest 
Thou  this?  but  confounded  them  by  His  return  question,  they 
explain  that  He  by  so  speaking  showed  that  the  Father  was  un- 
utterable." Then  Irenaeus  places  before  us  their  use  of  the 
treasured  verses  in  the  eleventh  chapter :  "  And  again  saying  : 
Come  to  Me,  all  ye  that  labour  and  are  heavy  laden,  and  I  will 
give  you  rest.  And  learn  of  Me,  (they  say)  that  He  announced 
the  Father  of  the  truth.  For  what  they  did  not  know,  they  said, 
this  He  promised  to  teach  them.  .  .  .  And  as  the  highest  point 
and  the  crown  of  their  theory  they  bring  the  following  :  I  confess 
Thee,  Father,  Lord  of  the  heavens  and  of  the  earth,  that  Thou 
hast  hidden  (these  things)  from  the  wise  and  prudent,  and  hast 


THE  AGE   OF   IREN^US— MATTHEW  1 67 

revealed  them  to  babes.  Thus,  O  Father,  because  grace  was 
granted  Me  before  Thee.  All  things  were  given  over  to  Me  by 
My  Father.  And  no  one  knows  the  Father  except  the  Son,  and 
the  Son  except  the  Father,  and  to  whomsoever  the  Son  may  reveal 
Him."  This,  as  Irenaeus  then  explains,  they  apply  to  their  notion 
that  the  God  of  the  Old  Testament  had  not  the  least  in  common 
with  the  good  God  of  the  New  Testament :  "  In  these  words 
they  say  that  He  shows  most  clearly  that  the  Father  of  truth 
whom  they  have  also  discovered,  was  never  known  to  anyone 
before  His  coming.  And  they  wish  to  insist  upon  it  that  the 
Maker  and  Creator  was  ever  known  of  all  men,  and  that  the  Lord 
spoke  these  words  of  the  Father  who  was  unknown  to  all,  whom 
they  set  forth."  They  base  thus  their  main  theory  on  the  Gospel 
according  to  Matthew  in  this  point,  in  which  they  undoubtedly 
followed  in  the  footsteps  of  Valentinus.  And  we  see,  in  spite  of 
all  that  is  said  about  other  Gospels,  that  these  are  their  real 
Gospels,  these  are  their  foundation  and  tower. 

We  have  already  shown  above  that  Justin  Martyr  appears  to 
have  known  the  Gospel  according  to  Matthew.  To  make 
assurance  doubly  sure,  we  find  in  the  Dialogue  with  Trypho  the 
second  chapter  of  Matthew  used  and  discussed  more  than  once. 
He  impresses  it  upon  the  Jew  that  Herod  got  his  information 
from  the  Jewish  presbyters  (ch.  78) :  "For  also  this  King  Herod 
learning  from  the  elders  of  your  people,  the  wise  men  then  coming 
to  him  from  Arabia  and  saying  that  they  knew  from  a  star  that 
appeared  in  the  heaven  that  a  king  was  born  in  your  country,  and 
we  are  come  to  worship  him."  Justin  continues  the  story  at 
length,  combining  it  with  Isaiah.  It  is  in  connection  with  this 
that  he  speaks,  as  given  above,  of  Herod's  slaying  all  the  boys  in 
Bethlehem.  More  than  twenty  chapters  later  (ch.  102)  he  returns 
to  this  chapter  again.  Here  he  again  reverts  to  the  journey  into 
Egypt,  and  offers  a  possible  objection  :  "  And  if  anyone  should 
say  to  us :  Could  not  God  have  rather  slain  Herod  ?  I  reply  : 
Could  not  God  at  the  beginning  have  taken  away  the  serpent 
that  it  should  not  exist,  instead  of  saying :  I  will  put  enmity 
between  him  and  the  woman,  and  his  seed  and  her  seed  ?  Could 
He  not  at  once  have  created  a  multitude  of  men?"  And  he 
again  reverts  to  this  a  chapter  later  (ch.  103).  Then  he  gives  the 
ety  "lology  of  Satan  from  sata,  an  apostate,  and  nas,  a  serpent — 
Sata?ias,  and  continues  :  "  For  this  devil  also  at  the  same  time 


j68  the  canon 

that  He  went  up  from  the  river  Jordan,  the  voice  having  said 
to  Him :  Thou  art  My  Son,  I  to-day  have  begotten  Thee,  in  the 
memoirs  of  the  apostles  it  is  written,  coming  up  to  Him  also 
tempted  Him  so  far  as  to  say  to  Him  :  Worship  me,  and  that 
Christ  answered  him  :  Go  behind  Me,  Satan,  the  Lord  thy  God 
shalt  thou  worship,  and  Him  alone  shalt  thou  serve."  Again 
he  writes  (ch.  105) :  "  For  also  urging  on  His  disciples  to  surpass 
the  method  of  life  of  the  Pharisees,  and  if  not  that  they  should 
understand  that  they  will  not  be  saved,  that  He  said,  this  is 
written  in  the  memoirs  :  Except  your  righteousness  abound  above 
the  scribes  and  Pharisees,  ye  shall  not  enter  into  the  kingdom  of 
the  heavens."  At  another  place  he  writes  (ch.  107) :  "And  that 
He  was  going  to  rise  on  the  third  day  after  being  crucified,  it  is 
written  in  the  memoirs  that  men  from  your  race  " — that  is  to  say, 
Jews,  like  Trypho — "  disputing  with  Him  said  :  Show  us  a  sign. 
And  He  answered  to  them :  An  evil  and  adulterous  generation 
seeketh  a  sign,  and  a  sign  shall  not  be  given  unto  them  " — unto 
the  people  of  that  generation — "save  the  sign  of  Jonah."  In  the 
fragment  on  the  Resurrection  (ch.  2),  Justin  quotes  Matthew : 
"  The  Saviour  having  said :  They  neither  marry  nor  are  given  in 
marriage,  but  shall  be  like  angels  in  the  heaven."  Of  course  he 
quotes  here  as  elsewhere  loosely. 

We  have  already  seen  what  Papias  says  about  the  work  of 
Matthew  in  writing  the  Sayings  of  the  Lord  in  Hebrew.  I  am 
inclined  to  suppose,  as  I  have  already  explained,  that  that  refers 
to  the  book  which  lies  at  the  basis  of  the  three  synoptic  Gospels. 
It  may  be  that  Papias  as  well  as  Eusebius,  supposed  that 
Hebrew  book  to  have  been  accurately  translated  in  and  to  be 
precisely  our  Matthew.  The  knowledge  of  Hebrew  was  not  so 
widespread  as  to  compel  us  to  suppose  that  the  assumption  that 
the  Hebrew  book  agreed  with  our  Matthew  was  correct.  Nothing 
indicates  in  the  least  that  Papias  did  not  have  and  hold  and 
treasure  our  four  Gospels. 

As  for  Athenagoras,  he  quotes  Matthew  loosely,  possibly 
bringing  in  a  word  or  two  from  Luke.  He  writes  (ch.  11): 
"  What  then  are  the  words  on  which  we  have  been  brought  up  ? 
I  say  unto  you  :  Love  your  enemies,  bless  those  who  curse  you, 
pray  for  those  who  persecute  you,  so  that  ye  may  be  sons  of  your 
Father  in  the  heavens,  who  causes  His  sun  to  rise  on  the  evil  and 
good,  and  rains  upon  just  and  unjust."     One  of  his  summaries 


THE  AGE  OF   IREN^US— MATTHEW  1 69 

(ch.  11)  seems  also  to  point  certainly  to  the  same  Sermon  on  the 
Mount :  "  For  they  do  not  place  before  us  words,  but  show  good 
deeds :  being  struck,  not  to  strike  back,  and  being  robbed,  not 
to  go  to  court,  to  give  to  those  who  ask,  and  to  love  the  neigh- 
bours as  themselves." 

Theophilus,  in  the  passage  above  touched  (3.  14),  gives 
Matthew  thus  :  "  But  the  gospel :  Love  ye,  it  saith,  your  enemies, 
and  pray  for  those  who  revile  you.  For  if  ye  love  those  who 
love  you,  what  reward  have  ye?  This  do  also  the  robbers  and 
the  publicans.  And  those  who  do  good,  it  teaches  not  to  boast, 
that  they  may  not  be  men-pleasers."  The  following  (2.  34)  points 
doubtless  to  Matthew:  "And  all  things  whatsoever  a  man  does 
not  wish  to  be  done  to  himself,  that  he  should  neither  do  to 
another." 

Tatian  seems  to  have  used  Matthew  in  a  very  strained  way  to 
back  up  his  asceticism.  Clement  of  Alexandria  describes  the 
agreement  of  the  Law  and  the  Gospel  in  reference  to  marriage, 
and  then  gives  the  forced  interpretation  of  Tatian  (Strom.  3.  12, 
86  and  87) :  "Saying  that  the  Saviour  spoke  of  the  begetting  of 
children,  on  earth  not  to  lay  up  treasures  where  moth  and  rust 
destroy."  And  a  few  lines  farther  on  :  *'  And  likewise  they  take 
that  other  saying :  The  sons  of  that  age,  the  word  about  the 
resurrection  of  the  dead :  They  neither  marry  nor  are  given  in 
marriage." 

But  we  have  given  enough  passages  to  show  that,  during  the 
time  that  we  have  thus  far  paid  attention  to,  the  Gospel  according 
to  Matthew  was  used  freely  and  in  circles  widely  distant  from 
each  other,  and  as  a  book  that  had  a  position  out  of  the  common 
run  of  books.  Let  me  say  at  once  that  we  should  not  look  for 
such  a  general  application  of  Mark  and  Luke.  The  position  of 
Matthew  as  the  first  of  the  four  Gospels,  and  perhaps  the  nai\L' 
character  of  the  history  of  the  birth  and  temptation  of  Jesus  in  it, 
have  secured  to  it  at  all  times,  and,  if  I  am  not  mistaken,  still 
secure  to  it  to-day,  a  frequency  of  perusal  that  the  two  other 
synoptic  Gospels  cannot  equal.  Matthew  is  read  more  than  the 
others,  save  perhaps  by  the  people  who  with  heroic  consistency 
compel  themselves  to  pay  like  honour  to  every  part  of  scripture, 
and  who  therefore  read  in  unvarying  course  from  the  first 
chapter  of  Genesis  up  to  the  last  chapter  of  the  book  of 
Revelation. 


I/O  THE  CANON 

Mark. 

For  the  Gospel  of  Mark  we  shall  have  little  to  bring  forward, 
for  the  reason  just  given.  There  is  a  curious  coincidence  with 
Mark  in  Justin  Martyr's  dialogue,  which  shows  us  that  he  knew 
and  used  this  Gospel.  Only  this  Gospel  gives  us  the  name  of 
Sons  of  Thunder  for  the  sons  of  Zebedee,  and  it  gives  it  to  us  in 
the  same  list  of  the  apostles  in  which  it  tells  us  that  Jesus  called 
Simon  by  the  name  Peter.  Justin  writes  (ch.  io6):  "And  the 
saying  that  He  changed  the  name  of  Peter,  one  of  the  apostles, 
and  that  it  is  written  in  his  " — "  his  "  memoirs  is  here  then  the 
Gospel  according  to  Mark  which  was  regarded,  as  we  have  seen, 
as  based  partly  on  what  Peter  told  Mark — "  memoirs  that  this 
took  place,  and  that  with  him  also  others,  two  brothers,  who  were 
the  sons  of  Zebedee,  were  supplied  with  the  new  name  Boanerges, 
which  is  Sons  of  Thunder,  this  was  a  token  that  He  was  that  one 
by  whom  also  the  name  Jacob  was  given  to  Israel  and  to  Auses 
Jesus" — Joshua.  Perhaps  Justin  has  the  close  of  Mark  in  his 
thoughts  in  the  following  passage  in  the  fragment  about  the 
Resurrection  (ch.  9),  although  he  also  brings  near  the  beginning 
words  that  recall  to  us  Matthew  :  "  Why  then  did  He  rise  with  the 
flesh  that  had  suffered,  were  it  not  for  the  purpose  of  showing  the 
fleshly  resurrection  ?  And  wishing  to  confirm  this,  His  disciples 
not  believing  that  He  had  truly  risen  in  the  body,  while  they  were 
gazing  and  doubting,  He  said  to  them  :  Have  ye  not  yet  faith  ? 
He  said  :  See  that  it  is  I.  And  He  permitted  them  to  touch  Him  ; 
and  He  showed  them  the  prints  of  the  nails  in  His  hands.  And 
when  they  had  recognised  him  from  all  sides,  that  it  was  he  and 
in  the  body,  he  begged  them  to  eat  with  him,  so  that  by  this 
they  should  learn  certainly  that  He  was  truly  risen  in  the  flesh. 
And  He  ate  honeycomb  and  fish.  And  thus  having  shown 
them  that  it  was  truly  a  resurrection  of  flesh,  wishing  to  show 
them  also  this — as  is  spoken  :  your  dwelling  is  in  heaven — that 
it  was  not  impossible  even  for  flesh  to  come  up  into  heaven,  He 
was  taken  up  into  heaven  as  He  was  in  the  flesh,  they  gazmg 
at  Him."  As  for  Papias,  we  have  already  seen  how  very  de- 
finitely he  described  the  writing  of  the  Gospel  by  Mark  in 
connection  with  what  Peter  had  told  him  about  Jesus.  And 
we  have  seen  that  the  Muratorian  fragment  seems  to  give  the 
same  or  q.  like  view  of  the  case. 


THE  AGE  OF   IREN/EUS— LUKE  I/I 


Luke. 

The  Gospel  of  I.uke  is  more  largely  used.  It  was  a  fuller 
and  more  attractive  book  than  Mark.  The  Ophites  refer  to  it. 
Hippolytus  speaks  of  their  mentioning  both  Assyrian  and 
Phrygian  mysteries,  and  joins  to  the  latter  (5.  7  ;  p.  140  [100,  loi]) : 
"The  blessed  nature  of  things  past  and  things  present  and  things 
to  come,  which  is  at  one  and  the  same  time  concealed  and  re- 
vealed, which  he  says  is  the  kingdom  of  heavens  sought  within  a 
man.  Then  they  quote  the  apocryphal  Gospel  of  Thomas.  The 
words  in  Luke  are :  "  For  behold  the  kingdom  of  God  is  within 
you."  AVe  know  how  readily  the  kingdom  of  heaven  or  the 
heavens  is  written  for  the  kingdom  of  God.  That  is  one  of  the 
instances  of  the  influence  of  the  Gospel  according  to  Matthew. 
A  similar  citation  of  the  same  text  by  the  Ophites  was  given 
above.  One  passage  that  they  use  (5.  7  ;  p.  142  [102])  looks  a 
little  like  the  seven  times  sinning  of  the  brother  as  given  by 
Luke :  "And  this  is  that  which  is  spoken,  they  say,  in  the  scrip- 
ture :  Seven  times  the  righteous  will  fall  and  will  rise  again."  If 
they  have  not  this  place  in  view,  it  is  hard  to  say  what  had 
induced  the  form  of  the  sentence.  A  few  lines  later  they  give 
the  verse  we  have  so  often  found  in  use  among  the  heretics : 
"This  one  they  say  is  alone  good,  and  about  him  they  said  that 
was  spoken  by  the  Saviour :  Why  dost  thou  say  that  I  am  good  ? 
One  is  good.  My  Father  in  the  heavens,  who  causes  His  sun  to 
rise  upon  just  and  unjust,  and  rains  upon  saints  and  sinners." 
The  fact  that  they  tie  the  words  from  Matthew  on  to  the  words 
from  Luke  only  shows  how  carelessly  they  quote  from  memory. 
Another  passage  or  two  in  Luke  seem  to  be  touched  in  the 
following  phrase  (5.  7  ;  p.  144  [103]) :  "Like  a  light  [not]  under 
a  bushel,  but  put  on  the  candlestick,  a  sermon  preached  upon 
the  houses,  in  all  streets  and  in  all  byways  and  at  the  houses 
themselves." 

Basilides  interprets  Luke's  words  of  the  angel  to  Mary  in  the 
sense  of  his  system  (7.  26  ;  p.  374  [241]) :  "  The  light  came  down 
from  the  Seven,  which  came  down  from  the  Eight  above  to  the 
son  of  the  Seven,  upon  Jesus  the  son  of  Mary,  and  He  was 
enlightened,  having  been  enkindled  by  the  light  shining  upon 
Him.    This  is,  he  says,  what  was  spoken  :  Holy  Spirit  shall  come 


172  THE  CANON 

upon  thee,  the  spirit  from  the  sonship  having  passed  through  the 
boundary  spirit  to  the  Eight  and  the  Seven  as  far  as  Mary,  and 
power  of  the  Most  High  shall  overshadow  thee,  the  power  of 
judgment  from  the  peak  above  [through]  the  Demiurge  down  to 
the  creation,  which  is  to  the  Son."  The  same  passage  is  used  by 
Valentinus  (Hipp.  6.  35):  "When,  then,  the  creation  came  to 
an  end,  and  it  was  necessary  that  the  revelation  of  the  sons  of 
God,  that  is  to  say,  of  the  Demiurge,  should  take  place,  [the 
uncovering  of]  the  hidden  condition  in  which  the  psychical 
man  was  hidden  and  had  a  veil  over  his  heart ;  when,  then, 
the  veil  was  to  be  taken  away  and  these  mysteries  were  to  be 
seen,  Jesus  was  born  of  Mary  the  virgin  according  to  the  word 
spoken :  Holy  Spirit  shall  come  upon  thee.  Spirit  is  the 
Wisdom.  And  the  power  of  the  Most  High  shall  overshadow 
thee.  The  Most  High  is  the  Demiurge.  For  which  reason  that 
which  is  born  of  thee  shall  be  called  holy." 

Heracleon  seems  to  allude  to  Luke  in  his  reference  to  a  most 
original  way  of  branding  the  sheep  in  the  Christian  flock.  It  is 
Clement  of  Alexandria  who  tells  us  of  it.  Clement  says  (Eel. 
Proph.  25),  in  speaking  of  John  the  Baptist's  words,  that  the  one 
coming  after  him  would  baptize  "  wdth  spirit  and  fire.  But  no 
one  baptized  with  fire.  Yet  some,  as  Heracleon  says,  marked 
with  fire  the  ears  of  those  who  were  sealed" — "baptized." 
Irenaeus  and  Epiphanius  say  of  the  Carpocratians  that  they 
branded  their  ears.  Clement  of  Alexandria  also  quotes  the 
passage  from  Luke :  "  And  when  they  shall  bring  you  before 
synagogues,"  and  then  tells  us  directly  that  Heracleon  comments 
on  it  (Strom.  4.  9.  71):  "Heracleon,  the  most  approved  of  the 
Valentinian  school,  explaining  this  passage,  says  word  for  word 
that  confession  is  on  the  one  hand  in  faith  and  in  manner  of 
life,  and  on  the  other  hand  with  the  voice.  The  confession, 
then,  with  the  voice  takes  place  also  before  the  authorities,  which, 
he  says,  many  in  an  unsound  way  regard  as  the  only  confession ; 
but  even  hypocrites  can  confess  this  confession."  There  is,  then, 
no  room  for  doubting  that  Heracleon  knew  and  valued  Luke. 
It  does  not,  however,  follow  from  this  passage  that  he  wrote  a 
commentary  on  the  whole  Gospel.  He  may  have  treated  this 
and  other  passages  singly  in  connection  with  discussions  upon 
the  Valentinian  system.  Luke  was  one  of  their  books.  The 
wide  spread  of  that  system  and  of  its  many  branches  and  side 


THE  AGE  OF  IREN^US— LUKE  1 73 

developments  makes  the  acknowledgment  of  our  four  Gospels 
upon  the  part  of  the  Valentinians  of  extreme  importance  for  the 
general  acceptance  of  these  Gospels  in  all  Christian  circles  before 
the  time  of  Valentinus.  He  did  not  invent  or  write  these  books 
He  found  them  in  stated  use,  and  used  them  too. 

Justin  Martyr  gives  us  two  allusions  to  Luke  in  one  breath, 
and  continues  the  sentence  with  a  phrase  from  Matthew.  Let 
us  look  at  the  passage  (Dial.  103)  carefully.  "For  in  the 
memoirs,  which  I  say  were  composed  by  His  apostles  and  by 
those  who  followed  with  them  " — those  who  followed  with  them 
refers  here  directly  to  the  same  Greek  word  as  the  one  used  by 
Luke  of  himself  at  the  beginning  of  his  Gospel,  refers  directly  to 
Luke  himself  who  is  the  only  one  to  give  us  the  phrase  that  is 
pointed  out — "  that  sweat  flowed  down  in  blood  drops  " — here 
the  word  blood,  which  Luke  puts  in,  is  left  out,  but  the  Greek 
word  used  for  drops  is  especially  used  for  drops  of  blood,  half 
congealed — "  He  praying  and  saying :  Let  this  cup,  if  it  be 
possible,  pass  by."  The  words  of  this  petition  are  rather  the 
words  of  Matthew  than  the  words  of  Luke.  We  have,  however, 
no  reason  to  think  that  Justin  meant  to  change  from  one  Gospel 
to  another.  He  is  full  of  his  theme,  and  totally  regardless  of 
trifles  of  expression.  He  goes  to  the  point,  and  he  gives  the 
point  aright.  It  should  be  observed,  that  his  drawing  these 
words  unconsciously  from  Matthew  here,  although  he  begins  with 
Luke,  is  not  to  be  used  as  a  sign  that  his  manuscript  of  Luke 
here  had  a  reading  of  Matthew  in  it.  Justin  did  not  look  at  the 
text  of  either  Gospel.  He  quoted  from  memory.  The  fact  that 
he  brings  in  Matthew  is  only  another  proof  of  the  prevailing, 
certainly  unconscious,  tendency  to  which  attention  was  called 
above,  to  use  Matthew  more  than  the  other  synoptic  Gospels. 

Again,  Justin  cites  Luke  and  follows  it  up  with  various  words 
from  Matthew.  We  have  here  to  do  with  Luke  alone.  He 
writes  (Apol.  i.  16):  "And  about  being  ready  to  endure  evil 
and  to  be  servants  to  all  men  and  to  be  without  anger,  what  He 
said  is  this :  To  him  that  striketh  thy  cheek,  offer  also  the  other 
one,  and  thou  shalt  not  forbid  the  one  taking  thy  garment  or  thy 
coat."  It  is  hardly  necessary  to  say  that  that  is  loose  quoting 
and  from  memory.  We  are  now  accustomed  to  this  habit  of 
Justin's.  In  a  like  hapless  way  he  joins  Mark  and  Luke  (Apol. 
I.  76);  "For  if  through  the  prophets  in  a  hidden  way  it  was 


174  THE  CANON 

announced  that  the  Christ  would  be  a  suffering  one  and  after  'hat 
ruling  over  all,  still  even  then  that  could  not  be  conceived  of  by 
anybody  until  He  moved  the  apostles  to  herald  these  things 
clearly  in  the  Scriptures.  For  He  cried  before  being  crucified : 
It  is  necessary  that  the  Son  of  Man  suffer  many  things,  and  be 
rejected  by  the  scribes  and  Pharisees,  and  be  crucified ;  and  on 
the  third  day  rise  again."  Here  we  have  directly  from  Justin 
the  statement  that  what  the  apostles  wrote,  that  is  to  say,  that 
not  only  the  Old  Testament,  but  also  the  New  Testament,  was 
scripture.  And  that  was  spoken,  moreover,  to  Trypho  the  Jew. 
Justin  quotes  the  same  passage  or  rather  passages  twice  besides 
this  in  his  Dialogue,  and  the  words  are  each  time  a  trifle  different. 
It  is  head  work,  not  out-of  book  work.  Just  before  the  last 
quotation  he  gives  another  passage  from  Luke  and  puts  centi- 
pedes in,  which  is  certainly  still  more  vivid  :  "And  again  in  other 
words  He  said :  I  give  you  power  to  tread  upon  snakes  and 
scorpions  and  centipedes,  and  upon  every  might  of  the  enemy." 
He  could  "  remember  "  a  fitting  word  right  into  the  text  without 
the  least  difficulty.  As  for  Hegesippus,  we  have  already  seen 
that  in  his  account  of  the  death  of  James  the  Just,  the  last  words 
of  James  agree  with  the  words  of  Jesus  in  Luke  asking  God  to 
forgive  his  murderers.  We  saw  that  Theophilus  of  Antioch  had 
chiefly  to  do  with  the  Old  Testament,  but  he  knows  and  uses 
Luke.  He  writes  (2.  13) :  "And  the  power  of  God  is  shown  in 
this,  that  at  the  first  He  makes  what  is,  out  of  things  not  existing 
and  as  He  wills.  For  what  is  impossible  with  men  is  possible 
with  God."  It  is  clear  that  the  Gospel  according  to  Luke  is  in 
wide  use  in  the  Church. 

John. 

Thus  far  we  have  found  that  the  three  Gospels  called  the 
synoptic  Gospels,  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke,  were  in  use  in  the 
Church,  and  we  have  understood  why  the  Gospel  according  to 
Mark  was  less  frequently  quoted  than  the  other  two.  The  Gospel 
according  to  John  stands  by  itself.  It  was  undoubtedly,  I  think, 
written  after  the  other  three,  and  probably  towards  the  close  of  the 
first  century.  If  we  remember  that  the  Christians  of  the  earliest 
years  sought  eagerly  the  accounts  of  Jesus'  life,  we  might  suppose, 
on  the  one   hand,  that  Matthew,   Mark,  and    Luke  would   be 


THE  AGE   OF   IREN^US— JOHN  1 75 

preferred  to  John  because  they  give  so  many  Httle  details  of  what 
Jesus  did  and  so  many  short  and  striking  utterances  of  Jesus  ;  and, 
on  the  other  hand,  that  John  would  be  slighted  because  he  gives 
so  little  of  Jesus'  movements,  and  such  long  and  lofty  discourses. 
And  we  should  not  be  surprised  if  the  late  origin  of  John  should 
cause  it  to  be  less  used  and  to  have  less  authority  than  the  other 
three.     Let  us  see. 

Simon  Magus  in  speaking  of  the  beginning  of  all  things  as 
infinite  power,  appears  to  refer  to  the  preface  to  John.  Hippol)  tus 
writes  (6.  9;  p.  236  [163]),  that  Simon,  after  pointing  to  the 
habitation  in  which  the  book  of  the  revelation  of  voice  and  name 
out  of  the  intelligence  of  the  great  and  infinite  power  is  found 
"  Says  that  this  habitation  is  the  man  born  of  bloods  ;  and  he 
says  that  the  infinite  power  dwells  in  him,  which  is  the  root  of 
all  things."  The  reference  to  John  is  there  all  the  more  likely 
because  Simon  is  speaking  of  the  beginning.  In  another  place 
Simon  may  possibly  refer  to  Jesus'  words  to  the  Samaritan 
woman,  when  he  says  (6.  19;  pp.  254,  256  [175])  that  Jesus 
"seemed  to  suffer  in  Judea,  not  having  suffered,  but  having 
appeared  to  the  Jews  as  Son,  and  in  Samaria  as  Father,  and 
among  the  rest  of  the  nations  as  Holy  Spirit ;  and  that  He 
suffered  Himself  to  be  called  by  whatever  name  men  chose  to 
call  Him."  I  do  not  think  that  that  needs  to  be  a  reference  to 
John. 

The  Ophites  quote  John  more  than  once.  We  begin  with 
the  preface  to  John  (5.  8;  p.  150  [107]):  "For  all  things,  they 
say,  were  made  by  Him,  and  without  Him  nothing  was  made. 
And  what  was  made  in  Him  is  life."  They  referred  also  to  the 
water  made  wine  (5.  8;  p.  152  [108]):  "And  this  is  the  water, 
that  in  that  good  marriage,  which  Jesus  turning  made  wine. 
This,  they  say,  is  the  great  and  true  beginning  of  signs  which 
Jesus  made  in  Cana  of  Galilee,  and  revealed  the  kingdom  of  the 
heavens."  The  kingdom  of  the  heavens  is  the  phrase  of  Matthew. 
The  third  chapter  and  the  conversation  with  Nicodemus  are 
clearly  known  to  them  (5.  7  ;  p.  148  [i 06]) :  "  For  mortal,  they  say, 
is  all  the  birth  below,  but  immortal  that  which  was  born  above ; 
for  it  is  born  of  water  alone  and  Spirit,  spiritual,  not  fleshly.  But 
that  which  is  below  is  fleshly.  This  is,  they  say,  that  which  is 
written :  That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh,  and  that  which 
is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  spirit.    This  is  according  to  them  spiritual 


176  THE  CANON 

birth."  Again,  they  name  the  living  water  of  which  Jesus  spoke 
to  the  Saniaritan  woman  (5.  7;  p.  140  [too]):  "For  the 
announcement  of  the  bath  is  according  to  them  nothing  else 
than  the  leading  into  unfading  joy  the  one  bathed  according 
to  them  in  living  water  and  anointed  with  an  unspeakable 
anointing."  Someone  might  be  inclined  to  think  that  this 
phrase  had  nothing  to  do  with  John ;  but  just  as  as  if  to  prove 
the  point  they  refer  to  the  living  water  in  another  place  (5.  9 ; 
p.  174  [121,  122]):  "And  we  are,  they  say,  the  spiritual  ones, 
those  who  choose  for  themselves  the  habitation  from  the  living 
water  of  the  Euphrates  flowing  through  the  midst  of  Babylon, 
walking  through  the  true  gate,  which  is  Jesus  the  blessed." 
Observe  the  allusion  to  John  in  the  last  phrase  too. 

But  we  must  add  further  for  the  living  water  the  direct 
quotation  of  the  verse, — a  quotation  which  is  all  the  more  valuable 
because  it,  in  its  freedom,  does  not  give  the  word  living  alone,  but 
also  the  word  welling  up,  springing  up,  and  yet  leaves  out  ever- 
lasting life.  Speaking  of  the  river  Euphrates  (5.  9  ;  p.  172  [121]): 
"  This,  they  say,  is  the  water  which  is  above  the  firmament,  about 
which,  they  say,  the  Saviour  spoke :  If  thou  knewest  who  it  is 
that  asketh  thee,  thou  wouldst  have  asked  from  Him  and  He 
would  have  given  thee  to  drink  living  water  welling  up."  In 
another  passage  they  follow  up  the  Samaritan  story  (5.  9 ;  p.  166 
[117]):  "For  a  spirit,  they  say,  is  God.  Wherefore,  they  say, 
neither  in  this  mountain  nor  in  Jerusalem  shall  the  true 
worshippers  worship,  but  in  spirit.  For  spiritual,  they  say,  is 
the  worship  of  the  perfect  ones,  not  fleshly.  And  the  spirit,  they 
say,  is  there  where  the  Father  is,  and  is  named  also  the  Son, 
being  born  from  this  Father."  The  quotation  is  free  enough, 
but  it  is  beyond  doubt  a  quotation  from  John. 

A  like  freedom  is  shown  in  the  following  from  the  fifth 
chapter  of  John  (5.  8;  p.  154  [109]):  "This  is,  they  say,  that 
which  is  spoken :  We  heard  His  voice,  but  we  did  not  see  His 
form."  From  the  sixth  chapter  (5.  8;  p.  158  [112]):  "About 
this,  they  say,  the  Saviour  spoke  :  No  one  can  come  to  Me,  unless 
My  heavenly  Father  draw  some  one."  And  they  add  :  "  It  is 
altogether  difficult  to  receive  and  accept  this  great  and  unspeak- 
able mystery."  From  the  same  chapter  the  following  words  are 
drawn,  but  they  are  mixed  up  with  other  words  from  John  and 
from   the   synoptists  (5.   8;  p.    152  [109]:  "This,  they  say,  is 


THE  AGE  OF  IREN.EUS— JOHN  1 77 

what  the  Saviour  spoke :  If  ye  do  not  drink  My  blood  and  eat 
My  flesh  ye  shall  not  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  the  heavens. 
But  even  though  ye  drink,  He  says,  the  cup  which  I  drink, 
whither  I  go,  thither  ye  cannot  enter  in."  Then  they  combine 
the  ninth  and  the  first  chapter  of  John  (5.  9;  p.  172  [121]): 
"And  if  anyone,  they  say,  is  blind  from  birth,  and  not  having 
beheld  the  true  light  that  lighteth  every  man  that  cometh 
into  the  world,  through  us  let  him  look  up  and  see.  .  .  ." 
Again  they  quote  from  the  tenth  chapter,  using  the  word  gate 
instead  of  door.  At  this  point  the  word  is  the  more  fitting 
because  they  had  just  cited  Genesis  (5.  8;  p.  156  [in]):  "This 
is  none  other  than  the  house  of  God,  and  this  is  the  gate  of 
heaven.  Therefore,  they  say,  Jesus  saith :  I  am  the  true  gate." 
The  Peratae  say  (5.  16;  p.  194  [134]):  "This  is  the  great 
beginning,  about  which  it  is  written.  About  this,  they  say,  it  is 
spoken  :  In  the  beginning  was  the  word  " — and  so  on  until — 
"what  was  made  in  him  is  life.  And  in  him,  they  say,  Eve 
was  made,  Eve  is  life."  Again  they  say  :  "  This  is  that  which  is 
spoken  (5.  16;  p.  192  [134])  :  And  as  Moses  lifted  up  the 
serpent  in  the  desert,  so  must  the  Son  of  Man  be  lifted  up." 
They  quote  the  following  freely  (5.  12;  p.  178  [125]):  "This  is, 
they  say,  that  which  is  spoken:  For  the  Son  of  Man  did  not 
come  to  destroy  the  world,  but  that  the  world  should  be  saved 
through  Him."  They  contrast  to  the  Father  in  the  heavens. 
from  whom  the  Son  comes,  the  evil  Demiurge  (5.  17;  p.  196 
[136]):  "Your  father  is  from  the  beginning  a  manslayer,  he 
speaks  of  the  ruler  and  Demiurge  of  matter,  ...  for  his  work 
worketh  corruption  and  death."  They  quote  aright  the  door 
(5.  17  ;  p.  198  [137]) :  "This,  they  say,  is  that  which  is  spoken  : 
I  am  the  door." 

The  Sethians  give  a  long  and  complicated  explanation  of  the 
birth  from  water,  and  combine  with  it  a  coming  down  from  above 
on  the  part  of  God  and  spirit  and  light,  and  they  continue  that 
the  perfect  man  not  only  must  needs  enter  into  the  womb  of  the 
virgin,  but  also  that  he  then  was  cleansed  from  the  impurities  of 
that  womb,  and  drank  the  cup  of  living  water  welling  up,  which 
it  is  in  every  way  necessary  that  the  one  should  drink  who  is 
going  to  put  off  the  servant  form  and  put  on  the  heavenly 
garment."  Hippolytus  quotes  also  the  same  verse  from  the 
Gnostic  Justin,  whom  he  discusses  immediately  after  the  Sethians, 


178  THE  CANON 

and  apparently  as  one  of  them.  Justin  says  that  the  earthly  md 
psychical  men  are  washed  in  the  water  below  the  firmament,  but 
the  spiritual  living  men  in  the  living  water  above  the  firmament, 
and  he  refers  to  the  book  of  Baruch  and  to  the  oath  of  **  our 
father  Elobim."  After  this  Father  had  sworn  and  had  seen  what 
no  eye  had  seen  (5.  27;  p.  230  [158]):  "He  drinks  from  the 
living  water,  which  is  a  purifying  bath  to  them  as  they  think," — 
I  take  it,  to  the  Sethians — "  a  spring  of  living  water  welling  up." 
In  an  extremely  disagreeable  connection  reference  is  made  to 
the  scene  in  which  Jesus  entrusts  Mary  to  John,  and  synoptic 
words  are  united  closely  to  those  drawn  from  John  (5.  26 ; 
p.  228  [157]) :  "  Woman,  thou  hast  thy  Son,  that  is  the  psychical 
and  earthly  man  " — that  which  was  left  upon  the  cross, — "  and 
He,  placing  His  spirit  in  the  hands  of  the  Father,  ascended  to 
the  Good."  The  Greek  text  seems  to  demand  the  rendering: 
placing  or  taking  in  His  hands  the  spirit  of  the  Father,  as  if  this 
spirit  were  the  medium  of  the  power  to  ascend.  We  have  already 
given  above  two  passages  in  which  the  noted  Gnostic  Basilides 
quoted  John. 

Ignatius  the  Antiochian  bishop  speaks  to  the  Magnesians 
of  God  (ch.  8) :  "  Who  revealed  Himself  through  Jesus  Christ 
His  Son  who  is  his  Word,  going  forth  from  silence  " — a  Gnostic 
phrase, — "who  was  well-pleasing  in  every  respect  to  Him  that 
sent  Him."  That  gives  us  at  once  two  plain  allusions  to  John. 
To  the  Philadelphians  (ch.  7)  he  writes:  "The  spirit"— this  is 
here  Ignatius'  own  spirit — "is  not  led  astray,  being  from  God. 
For  he  knoweth  whence  it  cometh  and  whither  it  goeth,  and 
reproves  the  things  which  are  hidden."  He  tells  the  Romans 
(ch.  7) :  "  The  ruler  of  this  world  wishes  to  make  a  prey  of  me, 
and  to  corrupt  my  thought  of  God."  Just  after  that  he  refers 
to  the  living  water :  "  For  living  I  write  to  you,  wishing  to  die. 
My  longing  is  crucified,  and  there  is  no  fire  in  me  loving  matter. 
But  there  is  water  living  and  speaking  in  me,  saying  within 
me :  Come  to  the  Father ! "  And  a  line  later :  '*  I  wish  for 
God's  bread,  which  is  the  flesh  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  one  from 
the  seed  of  David,  and  I  wish  the  potion  His  blood,  which  is 
His  love  incorruptible."  He  speaks  to  the  Philadelphians  (ch.  9) 
of  the  high  priest :  "  He  being  the  door  of  the  Father,  through 
which  Abraham  and  Isaac  and  Jacob  and  the  prophets  and  the 
apostles  and  the  church  enter  in."     It  is  plain  that  Ignatius  is 


THE  AGE  OF   IREX^US— JOHN  i;g 

full  and  running  over  with  the  Gospel  of  John,  even  if  he  does 
not  copy  off  whole  paragraphs  of  it  for  us. 

Valentinus  the  Gnostic  shows  us  that  he  knows  the  Gospel 
of  John  very  well.  We  saw  above  that  his  whole  system  seems 
to  proceed  from  this  Gospel.  Hippolytus,  condensing  Valentinus's 
words,  writes  (6.  35):  "Therefore  all  the  prophets  and  the  law 
spoke  forth  from  the  Demiurge,"  from  a  foolish  God,  he  says, 
fools  knowing  nothing.  On  this  account,  he  says,  the  Saviour 
saith :  "  All  who  came  before  Me  are  thieves  and  robbers." 
Ptolem^us  quotes  from  the  preface  to  John  in  his  letter  to  Flora 
(Epiph.  33):  "Moreover  He  [the  Saviour]  says  that  the  making 
of  the  world  was  His  own,  and  that  all  things  were  made  by 
Him  and  that  w^ithout  Him  nothing  was  made."  And  Irenaeus 
gives  us  another  quotation  of  his  from  the  same  preface  (Haer. 
I.  8.  5) :  "And  he  says  that  the  Son  is  truth  and  life,  and  that 
the  Word  became  flesh.  Whose  glory  we  beheld,  he  says,  and 
His  glory  was  such  as  that  of  the  only  begotten,  which  was 
given  to  Him  by  the  Father,  full  of  grace  and  truth.  And 
He  speaks  thus  :  And  the  Word  became  flesh  and  dwelt  among 
us,  and  we  saw  His  glory  as  of  the  Only-Begotten  by  the  Father, 
full  of  grace  and  truth.  Exactly  therefore  he  also  showed  forth 
the  Four,  saying  :  Father  and  Grace  and  the  Only-Begotten  and 
Truth.  Thus  John  spoke  about  the  first  Eight  and  the  mother 
of  all  Eons.  For  he  said  :  Father  and  Grace  and  Only-Begotten 
and  Truth  and  Word  and  Life  and  Man  and  Church."  The 
name  John  is  doubtless  put  in  by  Irenaeus.  And  Irenaeus  refers 
to  the  attempt  to  show  Jesus'  distress  or  perplexity  (Haer. 
I.  8.  2) :  "  And  His  consternation  likewise,  in  that  which  was 
spoken :  And  what  I  shall  say,  I  know  not,"  which  points  to  the 
twelfth  chapter  of  John. 

As  for  Heracleon,  whom  Origen  calls  an  acquaintance  of 
Valentinus',  and  whose  commentary  on  John  he  often  quotes  in 
his  own  commentary  on  that  Gospel,  Origen  says,  for  example 
(2.  14  [8]):  "He  adds  to  the  not  one" — that  is:  and  without 
him  was  not  one  thing  made  which  was  made — "  of  the  things 
in  the  world  and  in  the  creation."  Origen  charges  him  with 
forcing  interpretations,  and  that  without  testimony  to  back  up 
what  he  says.  How  sharply  he  looked  at  Heracleon's  words  we 
can  see  by  another  passage  (6.  15  [8]):  "The  difference  'the 
prophet'  and  'prophet'  has  escaped  many  people,  as  also  it  did 


l50  THE  CANON 

Heracleon,  who  says  in  just  so  many  words :  that  then  John 
confessed  not  to  be  the  Christ,  but  also  not  a  prophet  and  not 
Elias."  And  he  adds  that  Heracleon  ought  to  have  examined 
the  matter  more  carefully  before  he  said  that.  Qrigen  tells  us 
(6.  40  [24])  that  Heracleon  read  Bethany  and  not  Bethabara 
for  the  place  where  John  was  baptizing.  Again  he  writes  (6.  60)  : 
''  Heracleon  again  at  this  passage,  without  any  preparation  and 
without  bringing  references,  declares  that  John  spoke  the  words : 
Lamb  of  God,  as  a  prophet,  and  the  words :  That  taketh  away 
the  sins  of  the  world,  as  more  than  a  prophet,"  and  Origen  con- 
tinues to  describe  Heracleon's  explanation  of  the  verses.  We 
need  nothing  more  than  that  to  prove  that  Heracleon  was 
thoroughly  at  home  in  John. 

We  have  not,  so  far  as  I  know,  any  reference  to  John  in 
what  is  left  of  Marcion's  words.  We  know  that  he  only 
accepted  the  Gospel  of  Luke.  Nevertheless  we  find  a  word  or 
two  in  Hippolytus'  account  of  Apelles,  a  disciple  of  Marcion's 
which  can  scarcely  have  come  from  any  other  source  than 
John.  The  curious  and  the  interesting  thing  is  that  Apelles 
combines  this  with  words  from  Luke.  Perhaps  he  thought  he 
was  only  quoting  Luke,  although  he  was  adding  what  he  had 
really  read  in  John.  I  give  parts  of  the  passage  (7.  38) : 
*'  And  that  Christ  had  come  down  from  the  power  above  and 
was  its  Son,  and  that  this  one  was  not  born  of  the  virgin,  and 
that  the  one  appearing  was  not  fleshless  he  says,  .  .  .  and  that 
after  three  days  having  risen  He  appeared  to  the  disciples, 
showing  the  marks  of  the  nails  and  of  His  side,  persuading  them 
that  it  was  He  and  not  a  phantasm,  but  that  He  was  in  the 
flesh.  .  .  .  And  thus  He  went  to  the  good  Father,  leaving 
behind  the  seed  of  the  life  to  the  world  to  those  who  believe 
through  the  disciples."  The  prints  of  the  nails  and  the  side 
are  from  John,  and  the  expression  the  seed  of  the  life  sounds 
much  like  John. 

As  for  Hermas,  we  have  seen  that  dreams  are  not  fields 
for  quotations,  yet  he  seems  to  have  used  John.  He  writes, 
for  example :  "  It  was  necessary  for  them,  he  says,  to  go  up 
through  water,  that  they  may  be  made  alive,  for  they  could  not 
otherwise  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God."  The  allusion  in  the 
latter  part  seems  to  be  to  the  conversation  with  Nicodemus, 
and  then   the  words  through  water  and  be  made  alive  remind 


THE  AGE  OF   IREN^US— JOHN  l8l 

US  of  the  being  born  again.  Explaining  to  Hennas  the  rock 
and  the  gate  the  shepherd  tells  him  (Sim.  9.  12)  :  "This  rock 
and  the  gate  is  the  Son  of  God."  And  again  :  "  Therefore 
the  gate  was  new,  so  that  those  about  to  be  saved  should 
enter  in  by  it  into  the  kingdom  of  God."  That  is  the 
word  of  Jesus:  "I  am  the  door,"  John  lo^-^.  Speaking  of 
the  sheep  he  says  (Sim.  9.  31):  "But  if  He  shall  have  found 
some  of  these  scattered,  woe  shall  be  to  the  shepherds,"  10^2.13^ 
Jesus  receives  commands  and  power  from  the  Father  (Sim.  5.  6) : 
"  He  then  having  cleansed  the  sins  of  the  people  showed  them 
the  paths  of  life,  giving  them  the  law  which  He  received  from  His 
Father.  Thou  seest,  he  says,  that  He  is  Lord  over  the  people, 
having  received  from  His  Father  all  power."  The  homily,  which 
used  to  be  called  Second  Clement,  appears  to  point  to  John's 
preface  when  it  says  (9.  5) :  "  If  Christ  the  Lord  who  saved  us, 
being  at  the  first  spirit,  became  flesh,  i^*,  and  thus  called  us, 
so  also  we  shall  in  this  flesh  receive  our  reward.  Let  us  love 
each  other,  4^'  ^^^  so  that  we  may  all  come  into  the  kingdom 
of  God." 

We  have  already  seen  that  Justin  Martyr  used  the  story 
about  Nicodemus,  and  we  have  besides  learned  how  recklessly 
he  quotes  from  memory.  He  calls  Jesus  the  Word  (Apol. 
I.  63):  "The  Word  of  God  is  His  Son,"  i^-is.  And  again 
(Apol.  I.  63) :  "These  words  have  become  a  proof  that  the  Son 
of  God  and  apostle  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  who  was  formerly  the 
Word,  .  .  .  now,  however,  by  the  will  of  God  become  man 
for  the  human  race,"  i^-^^.  He  approaches  in  the  following 
the  only  [begotten]  (Apol.  2.  6):  "And  His  Son,  the  one 
called  alone  by  way  of  eminence  Son,  the  Word  being  with 
Him  and  begotten  before  the  creatures,  when  at  first  He 
created  and  ordered  all  things  through  Him."  That  is  from 
John,  i^*^-  1^,  through  and  through.  In  another  place  he  writes 
of  certain  opinions  of  the  Jews  (Apol.  t.  63) :  "  For  those 
saying  that  the  Son  is  the  Father  are  proved  to  be  men  who 
neither  understand  the  Father  nor  who  know  that  there  is  a 
Son  unto  the  Father  of  all  things,  who  is  the  Word  and  the 
first  born  of  God,  and  is  God,"  i^-  ^^.  Again  he  says  (Apol. 
I.  32);  "And  the  first  power  after  the  Father  of  all  things 
and  ruler  God  is  also  a  Son  the  Word,  who  in  what  manner 
being  made  flesh  He    became  a  man,   i^^-  ^^,  we    shall    say  in 


1 82  THE  CANON 

the  following."  That  can  only  be  from  John.  Again  (Apol. 
1.  32):  "He  declared  that  Christ  has  blood,  but  not  from  the 
seed  of  man  but  from  the  power  of  God,  i^^."  Again  (Apol. 
I.  5) :  "The  Word  being  formed  and  becoming  man  and  being 
called  Jesus  Christ,  i^^."  Again  :  "And  Jesus  Christ  alone  was 
born  particularly  a  son  to  God,  being  his  Word  and  first  born 
and  power,  1^^."  Justin  says  that  the  heathen  philosophers 
and  poets  and  writers  (Apol.  2.  13):  "Each  uttered  it  clearly, 
seeing  something  related  to  them  from  the  part  of  the  divine 
Word  which  was  scattered  abroad.  ...  As  many  things  there- 
fore as  are  well  spoken  by  all  belong  to  us  the  Christians,  for 
we  worship  with  God  and  love  the  Word  from  the  never  born 
and  unutterable  God,  since  also  He  became  man  on  our  account, 
ji.  14/'  Again  he  writes  (Dial.  105):  "For  as  I  showed  before, 
this  one  was  the  Only-Begotten  to  the  Father  of  all  things,  i^^ 
Word  and  power  sprung  especially  from  Him,  and  afterwards 
becoming  man  by  the  virgin,  as  we  learned  from  the  Memoirs." 
The  Gospel  of  John  must  have  been  one  of  the  Memoirs.  He 
writes  of  John  the  Baptist  from  the  Gospel  according  to  John 
(Dial.  88):  "The  men  supposed  that  He  was  the  Christ;  to 
whom  also  He  cried :  I  am  not  the  Christ,  but  the  voice  of  one 
crying,  i^^-  -^."  Jesus  says  that  He  only  does  what  the  Father 
teaches  Him,  what  pleases  the  Father,  and  Justin  writes  (Dial. 
56):  "For  I  say  that  He  never  did  anything  except  what  He 
that  made  the  world,  above  whom  there  is  no  other  God, 
wished  Him  to  do  and  to  speak,  4-'^^  s^^-^o  7.16  828-29  12^9. 50 » 
(comp.  Dial.  56).  That  covers  a  number  of  passages  in  John. 
Justin  speaks  twice  gf  the  man  blind  from  birth,  whom  we 
find  only  in  John  9^"'*^  We  saw  in  the  Muratorian  fragment 
that  the  First  Epistle  of  John  was  mentioned  with  the  Gospel. 
A  phrase  in  Justin  (Dial.  123)  reminds  us  both  of  the  Gospel 
and  of  the  First  Epistle  and  in  the  Epistle  of  a  singular 
reading:  "And  we  are  called  true  children  of  God  and  we 
are,  those  who  keep  the  commandments  of  the  Christ,  i  John 
31-  22."     Justin  must  have  known  the  Gospel  of  John  very  well. 

As  for  Papias,  who  gave  us  such  clear  statements  about 
Matthew  and  Mark,  we  are  compelled  to  take  a  second-hand 
witness.  But  it  speaks  so  definitely  that  it  can  scarcely  invent 
the  fact.  A  short  preface  to  John  in  a  manuscript  in  the  Vatican 
Library  says  that  Papias  speaks  of  John  at  the  close  of  his  five 


THE  AGE  OF   IREN/EUS— ACTS  1 83 

books,  and  declares  apparently  that  Papias  himself  wrote  it  at 
John's  dictation.  That  is  probably  a  mistake  for  Prochorus. 
Again  we  come  to  the  First  Epistle,  for  Eusebius  tells  us  that 
Papias  quotes  it.  Hegesippus,  as  we  have  already  observed, 
appears  to  refer  to  John  in  naming  the  door  of  Jesus.  Athena- 
goras  says  (Suppl.  10) :  "  But  the  Son  of  God  is  the  Word 
of  the  Father  in  idea  and  energy.  For  of  Him  and  by  Him 
all  things  were  made,  the  Father  and  the  Son  being  one.  And 
the  Son  being  in  the  Father  and  Father  in  Son,  in  oneness  and 
power  of  spirit,  mind  and  Word  of  the  Father,  the  Son  of  God, 
ji.  18"  jfj  another  passage  he  seems  to  paraphrase  a  verse  in 
the  seventeenth  chapter  (Suppl.  12):  "And  we  are  furthered 
on  our  way  alone  by  knowing  God  and  the  Word  with  Him 
what  the  oneness  of  the  Son  with  the  Father  is,  what  the  com- 
munion of  the  Father  with  the  Son  is,  what  the  spirit  is,  1 7^-  21." 
Theophilus  was  the  first  one  to  mention  this  Gospel  of  John 
by  name,  the  first  one  of  the  writers  whose  books  have  reached 
us.  Tatian  beginning  his  harmony  of  the  Four  Gospels  with 
the  beginning  of  John  and  the  fragment  of  Muratori,  with  the 
attempt  to  explain  the  origin  of  the  Gospel,  close  our  series 
worthily.  We  have  found  that  John  was  not  at  all  less  open 
to  quotation  because  it  did  not  give  details  of  the  life  of  Jesus 
in  great  masses,  x^nd  nothing  has  pointed  to  an  inclination 
to  give  this  Gospel  the  go-by  because  it  was  written  at  a  late 
date.  The  Christians  who  accepted  this  book  so  quickly  are 
likely  to  have  had  good  authority  for  their  view  that  it  was 
closely  connected  with  the  Apostle  John. 


Acts. 


We  now  come  to  the  book  of  Acts.  It  is  a  matter  of  course 
that  it  cannot  have  had  for  the  early  Christians  the  same  value 
as  the  Gospels.  The  inclination  to  write  and  to  read  history  as 
such  was  at  the  beginning  of  Christianity  extremely  small.  The 
eyes  of  all  were  directed  to  the  near  future  in  which  the  world 
would  close  and  the  new,  the  heavenly  life,  would  begin.  Never- 
theless we  know  that  this  book  was  in  the  hands  of  the  churches 
at  an  early  date — we  may  leave  the  date  for  the  moment  in- 
definite— and  we  find  occasional  references  to  it.     The  letter  to 


I  84  THE  CANON 

Diognetus  refers  to  it  (ch.  3) :  "  For  he  that  made  the  heaven 
and  the  earth  and  all  things  that  are  in  them  and  suppHes  us 
with  all  things  that  we  need,  doth  Himself  lack  none  of  the 
things  which  He  supplies  to  those  who  think  that  they  give  [to 
Him],  Acts  1724.25"  Polycarp  of  Smyrna  quotes  Acts  directly 
(ch.  i) :  "Who  endured  for  our  sins  up  to  meeting  death,  whom 
God  raised  up,  loosing  the  bonds  of  Hades,  Acts  2^\"  Hermas 
appears  to  have  Acts  in  view  when  he  writes  (Vis.  4.  2) :  "  Believ- 
ing that  thou  canst  be  saved  by  no  one  except  by  the  great  and 
celebrated  name,  Acts  4^^/'  xhe  Exhortation  to  the  Greeks 
which  is  associated  with  the  works  of  Justin  Martyr  seems  to 
have  Acts  in  mind  when  it  writes  of  Moses  (ch.  10):  "But  he 
was  also  regarded  worthy  to  share  in  all  the  education  of  the 
Egyptians,  Acts  7^2."  Hegesippus,  whom  we  quoted,  seems  to 
refer  to  Acts  when  he  speaks  of  James  as  being  a  true  witness 
to  both  Jews  and  Greeks  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  Acts  20^1. 
The  letter  of  the  churches  of  Vienne  and  Lyons  refers  to  the 
story  of  Stephen  the  first  martyr.  Acts  6^-7^®.  And  finally,  the 
fragment  of  Muratori  names  the  book  regularly,  while  Irenaeus 
quotes  and  paraphrases  many  paragraphs  from  it.  Irenaeus  is  a 
witness  to  the  opening  of  a  new  time.  We  found  that  the  early 
Christians  did  not  lay  great  stress  upon  history.  Irenaeus  does, 
and  therefore  makes  much  of  Acts. 


The  Catholic  Epistles. 

In  approaching  the  Catholic  Epistles  we  come  upon  some- 
thing new,  something  that  is  very  different  from  what  we  have 
thus  far  had  before  us.  The  Four  Gospels  and  the  book  of  Acts 
were  large  books.  The  Gospels  claimed  a  special  authority  and 
value  as  accounts  of  the  words  and  work  of  Jesus.  The  Acts 
seemed  to  busy  themselves  with  the  whole  of  rising  Christianity, 
and  were  often  supposed  to  include  the  acts  of  all  the  apostles, 
as,  for  example,  the  fragment  of  Muratori  said.  These  five  large 
books  were  not  to  be  overlooked.  If  a  church  or  a  private  man 
had  bought  one  of  them,  he  had  had  to  pay  well  for  it.  The 
papyrus,  or  the  parchment,  and  the  work  of  writing  these  books 
had  their  equivalent  in  a  round  sum  of  money.  The  Catholic 
Epistles  were  on  the  contrary  small  books ;  in  a  New  Testament 


THE  AGE  OF   IREN^US— CATHOLIC   EPISTLES        1 85 

lying  at  hand  the  book  of  Acts,  for  example,  takes  about  ninety 
four  pages,  and  James,  the  longest  of  the  Catholic  Epistles,  only 
about  ten  pages.  Now,  a  little  letter  like  that  would,  on  the  one 
hand,  be  easily  copied  off,  so  that  if  there  had  been  a  great 
demand  for  it  it  could  have  been  easily  distributed  widely 
through  the  churches.  But  such  a  little  letter  could,  on  the 
other  hand,  without  difficulty  escape  notice.  The  purchaser  would 
not  need  to  pay  so  very  much  for  it,  and  would  therefore  in  so 
far  be  less  conscious  of  having  it.  It  would  the  more  readily 
pass  out  of  his  thoughts  because  it  had  cost  him  little. 

These  letters  could  then,  as  short  letters,  have  been  easily  and 
comparatively  cheaply  copied  had  people  wanted  them.  Did 
many  Christians  wish  for  them  ?  At  the  first  blush  a  modern 
Christian  would  say :  Yes,  they  did  wish  for  them.  James  was 
the  first  bishop  of  Jerusalem  and  the  brother  of  Jesus,  Peter  was 
the  great  apostle,  the  leader  of  the  twelve,  John  was  the  beloved 
disciple,  and  Jude  was  the  brother  of  Jesus.  On  the  face  of  it, 
that  seems  plausible.  But  we  must  try  to  get  away  from  our 
conception  of  the  value  of  these  Epistles.  We  must  ask  what 
the  Christians  of  that  day  probably  thought  of  them.  To  begin 
with  James  and  Jude,  they  were,  it  is  true,  brothers  of  Jesus, 
and  if  their  letters  were  genuine  they  should  have  been  treasured 
by  the  Church.  Yet  we  must  agree,  in  the  first  place,  that  we 
Know  of  no  mission  work  on  their  part  that  impressed  their 
names,  their  personalities,  and  their  influence  upon  those  circles 
of  Christians  to  whom  the  greater  part  of  the  books  of  the  New 
Testament  were  entrusted.  They  were  doubtless  active  in  some 
way,  but  w^e  find  no  great  signs  of  their  activity  in  western  and 
in  Greek-speaking  districts.  And  in  the  second  place,  the 
longer  of  the  two,  the  letter  of  James,  was  addressed  to  the 
twelve  tribes  in  the  diaspora,  and  appeared  therefore,  however 
generally  intended,  to  be  particularly  Jewish  in  its  aim,  while  the 
two  or  three  pages  of  Jude's  letter,  if  really  from  Jude,  Jude 
being  named  as  a  brother  of  James,  were  full  of  the  Old 
Testament  and  of  Jewish  fables,  and  must  therefore  have 
appealed  to  the  Jewish  more  than  to  the  Greek  Christians. 
These  two  letters  were  therefore  not  good  candidates  for  a  wide 
circulation  among  the  Christians  west  of  Palestine. 

First  Peter  claims  for  us  consideration  because  of  the  name  of 
the  chief  of  the  twelve.     When,  however,  we  go  back  to  early 


1 86  THE  CANON 

times  we  see  at  once  that  the  whole  trend  of  the  greater  numbei 
of  Christians  was  towards  Paul  and  not  towards  Peter.  During 
the  second  century,  as  we  have  seen,  "  the  Apostle  "  was  Paul. 
It  did  not  occur  to  anyone  that  Peter  was  the  great  apostle.  Paul 
was  the  great  apostle.  We  must  not  forget  that  this  trend  towards 
Paul  is  not  a  splitting  of  the  Church  into  Pauline  and  Petrine 
Christians.  Far  from  it.  The  Christians  who  could  be  expected 
to  be  Petrine  are  almost  without  exception,  and  without  having 
any  thought  of  being  peculiar,  Pauline  Christians.  The  greatest 
division  in  the  early  Church,  that  became  for  a  while  in  a  sense 
independent,  was  the  split  caused  by  Marcion,  and  that  was 
in  the  other  direction.  That  threw  everything  Jewish  over- 
board. The  upshot  of  this  is,  then,  that  a  letter  from  Peter 
could  in  no  wise  offer  a  particular  rivalry  to  the  letters  of  Paul. 
And  therefore  this  letter  too  was  not  likely  to  be  so  widely 
copied  and  read.  Second  Peter  I  do  not  regard  as  genuine,  and 
I  see  no  reason  to  suppose  that  it  should  have  been  known  at 
this  time.  As  for  the  Epistles  of  John,  we  have  already  observed 
that  the  first  one  was  apparently  closely  attached  to  the  Gospel, 
almost  as  if  it  were  an  appendix  to  it,  so  that  it  has  a  peculiarly 
good  stand.  I  do  not  suppose  that  the  Second  and  the  Third 
Epistles  emerged  from  the  obscurity  of  private  possession  long 
before  the  point  of  time  at  which  we  now  are,  and  if  that 
supposition  be  just,  it  is  not  strange  that  they  should  not  be 
quoted.  Besides  their  private  character,  their  limited  size,  their 
small  contents  made  the  possibility  of  quoting  the  less.  They 
are  in  comparison  not  quoted  very  much  to-day. 


James. 

The  Epistle  of  James  is  perhaps  the  basis  for  Clement  of 
Rome  when  he  writes  (ch.  lo)  :  "  Abraham,  named  *he  friend,  was 
found  faithful  in  his  becoming  obedient  to  the  words  of  God." 
This  seems  more  likely  to  be  taken  from  James  2-^  than  from 
Isaiah  41^  or  2  Chronicles  20''.  Hermas'  Shepherd  is  simply 
full  of  James,  full  of  the  spirii,  the  thoughts,  and  the  words  of 
James.  The  ninth  commandment  begins  :  "  He  says  to  me : 
Take  away  from  thyself  doubt,"  and  gives  then  a  long  develop- 
ment  of   James    i^,    which    runs   on    with   variations   into   the 


THE  AGE  OF  IREN/i:US— JAMES,    FIRST   PETER         1 87 

following  two  commandments.  The  doubter  and  doubt  are 
scourged  in  many  passages  as  of  the  devil.  In  the  eighth  parable 
the  shepherd  says  to  Hermas  (ch.  6) :  "These  are  the  apostates 
and  betrayers  of  the  Church,  and  who  have  blasphemed  the  Lord 
in  their  sins,  and  moreover  also  have  been  ashamed  of  the  name 
of  the  Lord  which  was  named  upon  them,"  referring  to  James  2^. 
He  touches  James  s^^'^",  putting  faith  in  for  wisdom  (Mand.  9)  : 
"Thou  seest  then,  he  says,  that  faith  is  from  above  from  the 
Lord  and  has  great  power.  But  doubt  is  an  earthly  spirit  from 
the  devil,  having  no  power."  The  rich  who  cheat  their  labourers 
are  warned  as  in  James  s^-^  (Vis.  3.  9)  :  "  See  to  it  then,  ye  that 
luxuriate  in  your  wealth,  lest  those  who  are  in  want  groan,  and 
their  groaning  shall  go  up  to  the  Lord,  and  ye  shall  be  shut  out 
with  your  good  things  outside  of  the  door  of  the  tower."  In 
another  place  he  draws  from  James  4^^  (Mand.  12.  6):  "There- 
fore, hear  ye  me  and  fear  Him  that  is  able  to  do  all  things,  to 
save  and  to  destroy,  and  keep  these  commandments,  and  live  to 
God."  So  far  as  we  can  judge  of  the  Old  Syrian  translation  it 
contained  the  Epistle  of  James.  One  would  look  for  this  Epistle 
in  the  East 

First  Peter. 

The  First  Epistle  of  Peter  is  referred  to  by  Basilides.  Clement 
of  Alexandria  tells  us  where  (Strom.  4.  12,  81):  "And  Basilides 
in  the  twenty-third  book  of  his  commentaries  speaks  about  those 
who  are  punished  as  martyrs  as  follows  in  these  very  words :  For 
I  say  this,  that  so  many  as  fall  under  the  so-called  afflictions, 
whether  having  sinned  by  carelessness  in  other  faults  they  are 
led  to  this  good  by  the  mildness  of  him  who  guides  them,  being 
really  accused  of  other  crimes  by  others,  that  they  may  not  suffer 
as  condemned  for  confessed  wicked  deeds,  neither  reviled  as  the 
adulterer  nor  the  murderer,  but  as  being  Christians,  which  will 
comfort  them  so  that  they  will  not  seem  to  suffer.  And  if  any- 
one comes  to  suffer  who  has  not  sinned  at  all  in  the  least,  which 
is  rare,  not  even  this  one  shall  be  moved  against  the  will  of 
might,  but  shall  be  moved  as  also  the  infant  suffered  that  seemed 
not  to  have  sinned."  That  is  i  Peter  4^^-^^.  The  first  part  of 
the  letter  to  Diognetus  adds  i  Peter  3I8  to  Romans  (ch.  9) :  "  He 
gave  His  own  Son  a  ransom  for  us,  the  holy  one  for  the  lawless 


1 88  THE  CANON 

ones,  the  guileless  one  for  the  wicked  ones,  the  just  one  for  the 
unjust  ones,  the  incorruptible  one  for  the  corruptible  ones,  the 
immortal  one  for  the  mortal  ones." 

Polycarp  in  his  letter  to  the  Philippians  touches  here  and 
there  about  ten  verses  of  First  Peter.  He  quotes  i  Peter  i*' 
most  loosely  (ch.  i) :  "In  whom  not  seeing  ye  believe  w4th  joy 
unspeakable  and  glorified  " — and  continues  with  an  allusion  to 
1 12^ —  "  into  which  many  desire  to  enter."  A  few  words  later  i^^ 
comes  in  :  "  Therefore  girding  up  your  loins  serve  God  in  fear 
and  truth," — from  which  he  passes  to  i^i : — "  Leaving  the  empty 
vain  talk  and  the  error  of  the  many ;  having  believed  on  Him 
that  raised  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  from  the  dead,  and  gave  Him 
glory  and  a  throne  at  His  right  hand."  The  following  belongs 
to  I  Peter  2I1  (ch.  5) :  "  For  it  is  good  to  be  cut  off  from  the 
desires  in  the  world,  for  every  desire  wars  against  the  spirit," 
even  though  i  Peter  has  a  different  Greek  word.  Later  we 
find  I  Peter  2^2  (ch.  10):  "When  ye  can  do  good,  do  not 
put  it  off,  for  mercy  frees  from  death.  Be  ye  all  subject 
to  one  another,  having  your  conversation  blameless  before  the 
heathen,  so  that  from  your  good  works  also  ye  may  receive 
praise  and  the  Lord  may  not  be  blasphemed  in  you."  He  quotes 
I  Peter  2^^'  22  of  Jesus  (ch.  8) :  "Which  is  Christ  Jesus  who  bore 
our  sins  in  His  own  body  on  the  tree.  Who  did  no  sin,  nor 
was  guile  found  in  His  mouth,  but  He  endured  all  for  us,  that 
we  may  live  in  Him."  Again  he  quotes  and  enlarges  i  Peter 
3^ :  "  Not  returning  evil  for  evil,  or  reviling  for  reviling,  or 
blow  for  blow,  or  curse  for  curse."  And  we  find  also  i  Peter 
4"  (ch.  7) :  "  Let  us  return  to  the  word  that  was  handed  down 
to  us  from  the  beginning,  being  sober  unto  prayers  and  holding  out 
in  fastings."  That  is  a  very  abundant  use  of  First  Peter  for 
Polycarp's  short  letter. 

Among  the  few  fragments  of  Theodotus,  of  the  Valentinian 
eastern  school,  that  are  preserved  we  have  a  quotation  from  i 
Peter  i^^  with  Peter's  name  (Frag.  12):  "  Into  which  angels  desire 
to  look,  Peter  says."  Hermas  alludes  (Vis.  4.  3)  to  i  Peter  i''  in 
describing  the  four  colours  on  the  head  of  the  beast :  "  And  the 
gold  part  are  ye  who  flee  from  this  world.  For  as  the  gold  is 
proved  by  fire  and  becomes  good  for  use,  so  also  are  ye  proved 
who  dwell  in  Him."  Again  (Vis.  4.  2)  he  quotes  i  Peter  5", 
"  Well  didst  thou  escape,  he  says,  because  thou  didst  cast  thy 


THE  AGE  OF   IREN^US— FIRST  JOHN  1 89 

care  upon  God  and  didst  open  thy  heart  to  the  Lord,  and  didst 
believe  that  thou  couldst  be  saved  by  none  except  by  the  great 
and  glorious  name."  Irenaeus  quotes  (i.  18.  3)  from  the  Marcos- 
ians  a  phrase  that  reminds  us  of  First  Peter  :  ''  They  say  that  the 
arrangement  of  the  ark  in  the  flood,  in  which  eight  people  were 
saved,  most  clearly  pointed  to  the  redeeming  Eight."  That 
looks  like  i  Peter  3^0;  it  uses  the  same  Greek  word  for 
"saved."  As  for  Papias,  Eusebius,  in  a  passage  already  quoted, 
says  that  he  uses  proof  passages  from  First  Peter.  It  may  be 
that  Theophilus  has  i  Peter  i^^  in  mind  when  he  writes : 
"Believing  in  vain  doctrines  through  the  foolish  error  of  an 
opinion  handed  down  from  their  fathers."  The  allusion  to 
First  Peter  is  the  more  likely  because  Theophilus  a  few  lines  later 
in  a  list  of  sins  uses  two  designations  given  in  i  Peter  4^,  one 
of  which  only  occurs  there  in  such  a  list.  We  have  already 
read  above  words  from  First  Peter  in  the  letter  of  the  churches 
at  Vienne  and  Lyons ;  this  Epistle  had  reached  the  far  west. 
Irenaeus  (4.  9.  2)  quotes  and  names  First  Peter :  "  And  Peter 
says  in  his  Epistle :  Whom  not  seeing,  ye  love,  he  says,  in  whom 
now  not  seeing  ye  have  believed,  ye  will  rejoice  with  joy  un- 
speakable." That  is  I  Peter  i^.  The  sentence  is  curiously 
twisted.  The  word  for  unspeakable  means  rather  "  untellable." 
The  Old  Syriac  translation  appears  to  have  contained  First 
Peter. 

First  John. 

When  we  turn  to  First  John  we  must  remember  how  much 
testimony  we  have  already  had  for  it  as  bound  fast  to  the  Gospel. 
The  letter  to  Diognetus  (ch.  10)  refers  to  i  John  4^^:  "Or  how 
wilt  thou  love  the  one  who  thus  loved  you  before  ?  "  Polycarp 
(ch.  7)  quotes,  but  freely,  i  John  42-  3^  and  perhaps  2  John  7  : 
"  For  every  one  who  shall  not  confess  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come 
in  flesh,  is  antichrist.  And  whosoever  does  not  confess  the 
testimony  of  the  cross,  is  of  the  devil."  Possibly  First  John 
moved  Valentinus  (Hipp.  6.  29;  p.  272  [185])  to  write :  "For 
he  was  entirely  love.  But  love  is  not  love,  if  there  be  not  the 
thing  loved."  We  have  already  seen  that  Justin  Martyr  and  the 
Muratorian  fragment  knew  this  Epistle,  and  it  appears  to  have 
formed  part  of  the  Old  Syriac  translation. 


I90  THE  CANON 


Second  and  Third  John. 

The  two  smaller  Epistles  of  John  do  not  find  a  place  at  the 
first  directly  beside  the  Gospel  and  the  First  Epistle.  They  were 
doubtless  treasured  highly  and  preserved  carefully  in  the  family 
or  families  to  some  member  of  which  they  were  originally  sent. 
Finally,  as  time  went  on,  the  Christians  began  to  have  a  Httle 
more  thought  for  history,  for  archeology,  for  personal  reminders  of 
the  apostles.  Then  the  owners  of  these  two  letters  gave  them  to 
the  Church  in  general,  placed  them  in  the  circles  over  which  they 
had  any  influence,  or  handed  them  over  to  the  circles  nearest  to 
them.  The  clear  reference  to  them  in  the  fragment  of  Muratori 
gives  us  no  distinct  view  of  what  the  author  of  the  work  from  which 
it  was  taken  really  thought  about  them.  The  text  is  at  that  point  so 
corrupt  that  we  can  only  guess  at  its  possible  meaning.  We  may, 
I  think,  say  this  about  it.  It  is  in  the  first  place  of  importance 
that  these  letters  are  named  at  all  at  this  early  period.  In  the 
second  place,  it  is  of  weight  that  they  are  not  abruptly  rejected  as 
fictions  or  as  not  genuine.  In  the  third  place,  the  sense  of  the 
passage  as  originally  written  may  have  been  to  the  effect  that 
these  letters  were  held  in  honour  in  the  Catholic  Church,  meaning 
that  they  were  regarded  as  being  just  as  good,  just  as  genuine  as, 
even  if  much  less  important  than,  the  First  Epistle  of  John  or  the 
Epistles  of  Paul.  In  the  fourth  place,  the  mere  fact  of  their  not 
being  mentioned  at  the  same  time  with  the  First  Epistle  would 
seem  to  assign  to  them  a  lower  value  than  to  it,  although  the 
separation  might  be  due  alone  to  the  contents.  We  might  give 
this  thought  the  turn,  that  the  peculiar  contents  of  the  First 
Epistle  may  well  have  induced  the  otherwise  unusual  union  of  it 
with  the  Gospel,  and  thus  its  separation  from  the  two  other  letters. 
And  in  the  fifth  place,  the  original  sense  of  the  uncorrupted 
sentence  may  have  been,  that  these  letters  were  not  regarded  as 
of  equal  worth  with  the  other  Epistles,  but  that  they  were  recom- 
mended or  perhaps  only  endured  and  allowed  as  writings  that 
could  be  read  for  general  information  and  comfort,  but  as  void  of 
all  authority.  In  that  I  suppose  these  letters  to  have  been  mere 
private  letters,  this  species  of  depreciation,  if  the  sentence  should 
some  day  be  actually  proved  to  have  had  this  turn,  would  not  be 
of  any  great  importance.     The  two  letters  might  seem  to  be  the 


THE  AGE   OF   IREN.EUS— 2.    3   JOHN,   JUDE,    PAUL       19I 

dictation  of  one  growing  feeble  and  inclined  to  repeat  phrases 
coined  before  by  himself. 

JUDE. 

The  Epistle  of  Jude  has  a  general  address.  Vet  it  must,  as 
said  above,  if  genuine,  have  appealed  especially  to  Jewish 
Christians,  and  therefore  have  been  less  likely  to  be  met  with  in 
other  circles.  Up  to  this  time  the  only  mention  of  it  is  found  in 
the  fragment  of  Muratori  where  it  is  joined  to  the  Second  and 
Third  Epistles  of  John  of  which  we  have  just  spoken.  What  was 
said  of  them  holds  good  for  Jude,  all  but  the  reference  to  the 
private  character  of  those  two  letters. 


The  Epistles  of  Paul. 

When  we  turn  our  thoughts  to  the  writings  of  Paul  we  have 
to  keep  in  mind  some  general  considerations.  It  is  not  uncommon 
to  find  people  point  to  2  Thessalonians  2  2,  where  Paul  says 
that  the  readers  shall  not  let  themselves  be  alarmed  by  a  letter 
that  may  purport  to  be  from  him,  but,  as  is  suggested,  is  not  from 
him  at  all,  but  from  some  one  who  is  trying  to  deceive  them  by 
forging.  It  is  not  out  of  place,  then,  to  ask  at  this  point  whether 
or  not  we  should  suppose  that  a  large  number  of  letters  forged  in 
the  name  of  Paul  were  current  in  the  early  Church,  and  whether 
it  be  likely  that  any  such  letters  have  succeeded  in  winning  a 
foothold  among  the  Epistles  which  the  Church  assigns  to  Paul. 
If,  as  I  assume,  Second  Thessalonians  be  genuine,  it  is  of  a 
comparatively  early  date  among  the  Epistles  of  Paul,  and  if  we 
should  be  forced  to  concede  that  from  that  time  onward  until  the 
death  of  Paul,  or  even  until  still  later,  forgers,  the  same  ones  or 
others,  had  continued  this  nefarious  work,  there  certainly  would 
be  room  for  a  w^hole  series  of  Epistles  attached  to  Paul's  name, 
but  totally  opposed  to  his  person  and  to  his  spirit. 

Two  reflections  seem  to  me  to  make  it  altogether  unlikely  that 
such  Epistles  continued  to  be  forged.  On  the  one  hand,  the  very 
reference  to  the  frauds  here  made  by  Paul  would  have  the  tendency 
both  to  check  the  activity  of  the  deceivers  and  to  make  it  hard  or 
useless  for  them  to  try  to  palm  off  their  fabrications  upon  the 


192  THE  CANON 

churches.  And  on  the  other  hand,  the  long  missionary  work  of 
Paul,  his  passage  from  city  to  city,  at  least  as  far  as  Rome,  the  large 
number  not  only  of  his  acquaintances,  but  also  of  his  intimate  com- 
panions and  helpers,  who  knew  what  he  had  written  and  what  he 
had  not  written,  and  the  large  number  of  Epistles  that  he  wrote, 
must  have  made  it  exceedingly  difficult  for  forgers  to  start  their 
fabrications  upon  a  voyage  of  deceit  throughout  the  Church 
and  very  hard  to  prevent  anything,  that  they  might  perchance 
have  succeeded  in  starting,  from  being  detected,  exposed,  and 
denounced  in  a  dozen  places  that  had  the  most  accurate  infor- 
mation as  to  what  he  had  written.  Paul  wrote  so  much  that 
forgers  would  have  had  too  limited  a  field  for  action.  Paul's 
personal  acquaintances  were  too  numerous  and  too  widely 
dispersed  throughout  the  Church  to  leave  any  districts  of  import- 
ance unprotected  from  unscrupulous  writers.  It  is  therefore  from 
the  outset  not  likely  that  a  number  of  spurious  Epistles  bearing 
the  name  of  Paul  were  in  the  hands  either  of  the  great  churches 
in  the  cities  or  of  the  smaller  churches  in  the  provinces  and  in 
remote  districts. 

Romans. 

The  Epistle  to  the  Romans  meets  our  eyes  at  the  very 
beginning  in  the  letter  of  Clement  of  Rome.  Of  course,  Clement 
quotes  freely,  not  from  the  roll  before  him  but  from  memory. 
To  the  question,  how  we  may  come  to  find  a  place  among  those 
who  await  the  Father  and  his  gifts,  he  replies  (ch.  35),  among 
other  things :  "  If  we  seek  out  what  is  well-pleasing  and  accept- 
able to  him.  If  we  accomplish  the  things  that  pertain  to  his 
blameless  counsel  and  follow  the  way  of  the  Truth,  casting  away 
from  ourselves  all  iniquity  and  lawlessness,  avarice,  strifes,  both 
evil  habits  and  frauds,  both  backbitings  and  slanders,  hatred  of 
God,  both  pride  and  boasting,  both  vain  glory  and  lack  of 
hospitality.  For  those  doing  these  things  are  hateful  to  God,  and 
not  only  those  doing  them  but  also  those  who  agree  with  them." 
That  is  Rom.  i29-32_  And  it  was  quoted  thus  at  Rome  about 
the  year  95,  and  quoted  to  the  Corinthians,  the  people  living 
where  Paul  had  been  when  he  wrote  Romans.  The  Ophites 
(Hipp.  5.  7;  pp.  138,  140  [99,  100])  quote  Rom.  i^O'^^and  ^e.  27_ 
It  is  clear  that  they  quote  this  long  passage,  from  the  roll  before 


THE  AGE  OF   IREN^US— ROMANS  I93 

their  eyes.  They  attribute  the  words  to  the  Logos,  the  Word, 
and  appear  to  say  that  Paul  writes  them.  BasiUdes  (Hipp.  7.  25  ; 
p.  368  [238])  quotes  Rom.  8^^-  —,  but  turned  about  and  mixed  up. 
He  says  :  "  As  it  is  written  :  And  the  creation  itself  groans  (with 
us),  and  is  in  travail  awaiting  the  revelation  of  the  sons  of  God." 
In  another  place  (7.  27  ;  p.  374  [241,  242])  he  uses  this  very  same 
passage,  but  still  more  freely.  He  says  :  "  When  then  all  sonship 
shall  come  and  shall  be  above  the  boundary,  that  is  the  spirit,  then 
the  creation  shall  be  treated  mercifully.  For  it  groans  until  now, 
and  is  tortured  and  awaits  the  revelation  of  the  sons  of  God,  so 
that  all  the  men  of  the  sonship  may  come  up  thence."  Again 
(7.  25  ;  p.  370  [238,  239])  he  touches  this  passage  in  this  shape, 
uniting  to  it  Eph.  i^M  "Since  then  it  was  necessary,  he  says, 
that  we  the  children  of  God  should  be  revealed,  about  whom, 
he  says,  the  creation  groaned  and  travailed  awaiting  the  revela- 
tion, and  the  Gospel  came  into  the  world  and  passed  through 
all  might  and  authority  and  lordship  and  every  name  that  is 
named."  In  another  place  (7.  25  ;  p.  370  [238])  he  refers  to 
Rom.  5^^'  ^'^  from  memory,  and  mixes  the  two  verses  together  in 
the  sentence:  "Therefore  until  Moses  from  Adam  reigned  sin, 
as  is  written."     That  is  enough  for  Basilides. 

The  letter  to  Diognetus  (ch.  9)  bases  a  long  paragraph  on 
the  two  "times"  of  Paul,  as,  for  example,  in  Rom.  321-20^ 
In  that  paragraph  it  quotes  Rom.  8^^  which  I  gave  above 
in  connection  with  i  Pet.  3^^,  and  refers  as  follows  to  the 
verses  opening  with  Rom.  5^^:  "In  order  that  the  lawlessness 
of  many  should  be  hidden  in  one  just  one,  and  the  righteousness 
of  one  should  justify  many  lawless  ones."  Polycarp  of  Smyrna 
(ch.  6)  quotes  Rom.  14^^-  ^^ :  "  For  we  are  before  the  eyes  of  the 
Lord  and  God,  and  we  must  all  stand  before  the  judgment-seat 
of  the  Christ,  and  each  one  give  account  for  himself."  This  is 
the  constant  loose  quoting  of  those  early  days,  which  is  after  all 
so  very  much  like  the  loose  quoting  that  is  often  to  be  heard 
and  to  be  read  in  these  modern  days.  Valentinus  (Hipp.  6.  35) 
quotes  Rom.  8^1 :  "  This,  he  says,  is  that  which  is  spoken :  He 
that  raised  Christ  from  the  dead  will  also  make  alive  our  mortal 
bodies  or  psychical  [bodies].  For  the  earth  came  under  a  curse." 
Ptolemaeus  (Iren.  i.  8.  3)  touches  Rom.  ii^*^:  "That  the  Saviour 
received  the  first-fruits  of  those  whom  He  was  about  to  save, 
[they  say  that]  Paul  said  :  And  if  the  first-fruits  are  holy,  so  also 


194  THE  CANON 

is  that  which  is  leavened  (or  the  baking)."  He  may  have  Rom. 
11^6  in  mind  when  he  says  (i.  3.  4) :  "All  things  are  unto  Him 
and  all  things  are  from  Him." 

Heracleon  refers  (Orig.  on  John,  vol.  20.  [38  30])  to  Rom. 
13^:  "The  one  seeking  and  judging  is  the  one  revenging  me, 
the  servant  set  for  this  purpose,  who  does  not  bear  the  sword  in 
vain,  the  revenger  (the  attorney  or  the  judge)  of  the  king."  He 
alludes  (Orig.  on  John,  vol.  13.  25)  to  Rom.  12^  and  in  so 
doing  gives  us  an  example  of  the  way  in  which  the  second 
century  calls  Paul  "  the  apostle  " :  "  as  also  the  apostle  teaches, 
saying  that  such  piety  (or  service  of  God)  is  a  reasonable  service." 
Again  he  points  to  Rom.  i^^,  when  he  blames  (Orig.  on  John, 
vol.  13.  19)  the  former  worshippers  who  worshipped  in  the  flesh 
and  in  error  the  not-Father :  "  So  that  all  those  who  worshipped 
the  Demiurge  alike  went  astray.  And  Heracleon  charges  that 
they  served  the  creation  and  not  the  true  creator,  who  is  Christ." 
Theodotus  (Fragm.  49)  gives  us  in  like  manner  Paul  as  "the 
apostle,"  and  quotes  Rom.  8^0 :  "  Therefore  the  apostle  said : 
He  was  subject  to  the  emptiness  of  the  world,  not  willingly  but 
because  of  Him  that  subjected  Him,  in  hope,  because  He  also 
will  have  been  freed  when  the  seed  of  God  are  gathered  to- 
gether." He  uses  (Fragm.  56)  also  Rom.  ii^^  freely:  "When 
then  the  psychical  things  are  grafted  in  the  good  olive  tree  unto 
faith  and  incorruption,  and  partake  of  the  fatness  of  the  olive, 
and  when  the  heathen  shall  enter  in,  then  thus  all  Israel  shall 
be  saved."  Again  he  writes  down  (Fragm.  67)  Rom.  7^: 
"When  we  were  in  the  flesh,  says  the  apostle,  as  if  already 
speaking  outside  of  the  body." 

The  presbyter  whom  Irenaeus  cites  (4.  27.  2)  alludes  to 
Rom.  3^3 :  "  For  all  men  are  lacking  in  the  glory  of  God,  but 
they  are  justified  not  from  themselves  but  from  the  coming  of 
the  Lord,  those  who  await  His  light."  And  again  (4.  27.  2) 
he  quotes  Rom.  ti^i  and  ^"^  from  memory  curiously  combined  : 
"And  that  therefore  Paul  said:  For  if  He  did  not  spare  the 
natural  branches,  lest  He  perchance  also  spare  not  thee,  who 
though  thou  wast  a  wild  olive,  wast  grafted  into  the  fat  of  the 
olive  and  wast  made  a  companion  of  its  fatness."  Justin  Martyr 
(Dial.  47)  refers  to  Rom.  2^ :  "For  the  mildness  and  the 
philanthropy  of  God  and  the  unmeasuredness  of  His  riches 
holds  the  one  who  repents  from  his  sins,  as  Ezekiel  says,  for  just 


0 

THE  AGE  OF    IREN^US— FIRST  CORINTHIANS      I95 

and  sinless."  Perhaps  he  has  Rom.  12^  half  in  mind  when  he 
(Dial.  40)  writes  of  Christ  as  of  a  paschal  lamb :  "  With  whose 
blood  according  to  the  word  (or  the  measure,  perhaps)  of  their 
faith  in  Him  they  anoint  their  houses,  that  is  to  say  them- 
selves, they  who  believe  in  Him."  We  have  already  seen  that 
the  churches  in  Vienna  and  Lyons  knew  this  Epistle.  And 
Theophilus  of  Antioch,  writing  to  his  friend  Autolycus,  gives 
(i.  14)  a  loose  quotation  of  Rom.  2^-^,  putting  into  the  middle 
of  it  I  Cor.  2^  and  6^-  ^^,  evidently  altogether  from  memory.  It  is 
a  typical  quotation  :  "  Paying  each  one  according  to  deserts  the 
wages.  To  those  who  in  patience  through  good  works  seekin- 
corruption  He  will  give  freely  life  everlasting,  joy,  peace,  rest, 
and  abundance  of  good  things,  which  neither  eye  hath  seen  nor 
ear  heard  nor  hath  gone  up  into  the  heart  of  man.  But  to  the 
unbelieving  and  despisers  and  those  not  obeying  the  truth,  but 
obeying  injustice  since  they  are  kneaded  full  of  adulteries  and 
fornications  and  sodomies  and  avarices  and  the  forbidden 
idolatries,  shall  be  wrath  and  anger,  tribulation  and  straits.  And 
at  the  end  eternal  fire  shall  take  possession  of  them." 


First  Corinthians. 

The  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  had  a  rare  testimony  to 
its  genuineness  in  the  letter  of  Clement  of  Rome  quoted  above  : 
"Take  up  the  Epistle  of  the  sainted  Paul  the  apostle.  What 
did  he  write  to  you  first  in  the  beginning  of  the  Gospel  ?  "  After 
that  we  could  almost  dispense  with  later  witnesses.  Simon 
Magus  (Hipp.  6.  14  ;  p.  244  [168])  uses  i  Cor.  ii32 :  "This,"  he 
says,  "is  that  which  is  spoken  :  That  we  may  not  be  condemned 
with  the  world."  The  Ophites  (Hipp.  5.  8;  p.  158  [112])  bring 
us  I  Cor.  2'^^'  1* :  "  These,  they  say,  are  the  things  that  are  called 
by  all  unspeakable  mysteries :  which  [also  we  utter]  not  in 
learned  words  of  human  wisdom,  but  in  [words]  learned  of  spirit, 
judging  spiritual  things  by  spiritual,  and  the  natural  (psychical) 
man  does  not  receive  the  things  of  the  spirit  of  God,  for  they 
are  foolishness  to  him.  And  these  they  say  are  the  unspeak- 
able mysteries  of  the  spirit,  which  we  alone  know."  In  another 
place  (5.  8;  p.  160  [113])  they  play  on  the  word  for  "ends"  in 
I  Cor.  10^1,  using  it  also  in  the  sense  of  "customs":  "For  tax- 


196  THE  CANON 

gatherers,  they  say,  are  those  taking  the  customs  of  all  things, 
and  we,  they  say,  are  the  tax-gatherers  :  Upon  whom  the  customs 
(taxes,  instead  of  ends)  of  the  ages  have  fallen."  And  they  go 
on  to  discuss  the  word.  The  Peratse  quote  (5.  12  ;  p.  178  [125]) 
again  i  Cor.  ii^^  and  call  it  Scripture :  "  And  when  the  Scripture 
saith,  they  say  :  That  we  may  not  be  condemned  with  the  world, 
it  mentions  the  third  part  of  the  special  world."  Basilides  (6.  26  ; 
p.  372  [240])  quotes  also  i  Cor.  2^^  and  calls  it  Scripture. 
Ignatius  in  writing  to  the  Ephesians  (ch.  18)  refers  to  i  Cor.  i^O; 
"  Where  is  a  wise  man  ?  Where  is  one  making  researches  ? 
Where  is  the  boasting  of  those  called  intelligent  ?  " 

The  letter  to  Diognetus  (ch.  5)  points  to  i  Cor.  4IO-12  when  it 
says  of  the  Christians  :  "  They  are  dishonoured  and  glory  in  the 
dishonourings.  They  are  blasphemed  and  are  justified.  They 
are  reviled  and  they  bless.  They  are  insulted  and  do  honour." 
Polycarp,  writing  to  the  Philippians,  names  Paul  (ch.  11)  and 
quotes  I  Cor.  6^ :  "  Or  do  we  not  know  that  the  saints  shall 
judge  the  world,  as  Paul  teaches."  Again  (ch.  5)  he  quotes 
I  Cor.  6^-1^:  "And  neither  whores  nor  effeminate  men  nor 
sodomites  shall  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God,  nor  those  doing 
unseemly  things." 

Valentinus  gives  us  i  Cor.  2^-^  again  (6.  34  ;  p.  284  [193,  194]) : 
"Therefore,"  he  says,  "the  natural  man  does  not  receive  the 
things  of  the  spirit  of  God,  for  they  are  foolishness  to  him,  And 
foolishness,  he  says,  is  the  power  of  the  Demiurge,  for  he  was 
foolish  and  without  understanding,  and  thought  he  was  working 
out  the  world,  being  ignorant  that  Wisdom,  the  mother,  the 
Eight,  works  all  things  in  him  for  the  creation  of  the  world 
without  his  knowing  it."  The  Valentinians  (Iren.  i.  3.  5)  quote 
1  Cor.  ji^:  "And  they  say  that  Paul  the  apostle  himself  refers 
to  this  very  cross " — they  insisting  upon  it  that  the  fan  for 
purging  the  threshing-floor  was  the  cross — "  thus  :  For  the  word 
of  the  cross  is  to  those  who  perish,  foolishness,  but  to  those 
who  are  saved,  the  power  of  God."  They  bring  forward  (i.  8.  2) 
also  T  Cor.  15^  with  ii^o  in  this  way:  "And  they  say  that  Paul 
spoke  in  the  [Epistle]  to  the  Corinthians  :  And  last  of  all  as  to 
the  untimely  born,  he  was  seen  also  by  me.  And  that  he  in  the 
same  Epistle  manifested  the  appearance  to  the  Achamoth  with 
the  contemporaries  of  the  Saviour,  saying  :  It  is  necessary  that 
the  woman   have   a   veil   on  her  head  because  of  the   angels. 


THE  AGE  OF  IREN/EUS— FIRST  CORINTHIANS      1 97 

And  that  when  the  Saviour  came  to  her,  the  Achamoth  put  on 
a  veil  for  modesty's  sake."  Again  (i.  8.  3)  they  combine  i  Cor. 
15^^^  and  2i4-i^:  "And  [they  say]  that  Paul,  moreover,  spoke 
clearly  of  earthly  men,  natural  men,  and  spiritual  men.  In  one 
place  :  Such  as  the  earthly  one  is,  so  also  are  the  earthly  ones. 
And  in  another  place  :  And  the  natural  (psychical)  man  does 
not  receive  the  things  of  the  spirit.  And  in  another  place : 
The  spiritual  man  judgeth  all  things.  And  they  say  that  the 
phrase :  The  natural  man  receiveth  not  the  things  of  the  spirit, 
is  spoken  of  the  Demiurge,  who  being  psychical  did  not  know 
either  the  mother  who  is  spiritual,  or  her  seed,  or  the  sons  in 
the  pleroma." 

Heracleon  (Orig.  on  John,  vol.  13.  59  [58])  seems  to  refer 
to  I  Cor.  2^  when  he  speaks  of:  "The  kingly  one  of  the  rulers 
of  this  age."  He  gives  i  Cor.  1553.54  j-j^yg  ^j^^  ^q  j-^^j^  .  "^^d 
Heracleon  does  not  regard  the  soul  as  immortal,  but  as  having 
need  of  salvation,  saying  that  it  is  the  soul  which  is  meant  in 
the  words :  Corruption  putting  on  (clothed  in)  incorruption  and 
mortality  putting  on  immortality,  when  its  death  is  swallowed  up 
in  victory." 

Theodotus,  speaking  of  "the  apostle,"  which,  of  course,  is 
Paul — a  few  lines  farther  he  calls  Peter,  Peter — quotes  (Fragm. 
11)  from  him  i  Cor.  1 5"^^  in  this  enlarged  way  :  "  Another  glory  of 
the  heavenly  ones,  another  of  the  earthly  ones,  another  of  the 
angels,  another  of  the  archangels."  Then  a  little  later  (Fragm.  14) 
he  turns  to  i  Cor.  is^'*:  "Therefore  the  apostle:  For  it  is  sown 
a  natural  (psychical)  body,  but  is  raised  a  spiritual  body."  And 
again  (Fragm.  15)  he  gives  us  i  Cor.  15*9  and  13^2 .  "And  as  we 
bore  the  image  of  the  earthly,  so  also  shall  we  bear  the  image 
of  the  heavenly,  of  the  spiritual,  being  perfected  by  degrees.  But 
he  says  image  again,  as  if  there  were  spiritual  bodies.  And 
again  :  Now  we  see  through  a  mirror  in  an  enigma,  but  then 
face  to  face."  In  another  passage  (Fragm.  22)  he  quotes  i  Cor. 
J ^29.  "And  when  the  apostle  says:  'Since  what  will  those  do 
who  are  baptized  for  the  dead  ? '  For  in  our  behalf,  he  says,  the 
angels  were  baptized,  of  whom  we  are  parts."  This  he  discusses 
at  length.  Like  the  Valentinians,  he  also  (Fragm.  44)  gives  us 
I  Cor.  11^"^.  The  passage  is  thoroughly  Oriental.  Wisdom  sees 
Jesus  Christ,  runs  with  joy  to  meet  Him,  and  worships  Him  : 
"  But  beholding  the   male  angels  sent  out  with   Him,  she  was 


198  THE  CANON 

ashamed  and  put  on  a  veil.  Because  of  the  mystery  Paul  com- 
mands the  women :  To  wear  power  on  the  head  because  of  the 
angels."  How  absurd  that  the  great  Wisdom  should  be  repre- 
sented as  feeling  the  Eastern  feminine  reluctance  to  be  seen, 
to  have  her  face  seen,  by  male  persons,  yes,  by  male  angels. 
Another  remarkable  passage  (Fragm.  80),  the  last  from  Theo- 
dotus,  I  must  give  in  full,  for  it  reaches  from  Nicodemus  to  Paul : 
"  He  whom  the  mother  bears  to  death  is  lead  also  to  the  world, 
but  whom  Christ  bears  again  to  life  is  changed  off  to  the  Eight. 
And  they  will  die  to  the  world,  but  live  to  God,  so  that  death 
may  be  loosed  by  death,  and  the  corruption  shall  rise  again. 
For  he  who  has  been  sealed  by  Father  and  Son  and  Holy  Spirit 
cannot  be  seized  by  any  other  power,  and  is  changed  by  three 
names  of  all  the  Trinity  (?)  in  corruption.  Having  borne  the 
image  of  the  earthly,  it  then  bears  the  image  of  the  heavenly," 
I  Cor.  15^^.  Of  course  that  means  that  the  corruption  rises  in 
incorruption,  and  is  changed  from  corruption  to  incorruption. 

Hermas  (Sim.  5.  7)  seems  to  have  i  Cor.  3I6.  i"  [^i  mind 
when  he  writes  that  the  shepherd  says  to  him :  "  Hear  now ; 
keep  thy  flesh  pure  and  unspotted,  in  order  that  the  spirit 
dwelling  in  it  may  bear  witness  to  it,  and  thy  flesh  may  be 
justified.  ...  If  thou  soilest  thy  flesh,  thou  wilt  soil  also  the 
Holy  Spirit.  And  if  thou  soil  the  spirit,  thou  shalt  not  live." 
Justin  appears  (Apol.  60)  to  allude  to  i  Cor.  2^-^  in  saying 
that  the  Christians  were  largely  humble,  unlearned  men,  and 
adding:  "So  that  it  may  be  understood  that  these  things 
did  not  take  place  by  human  wisdom  but  were  said  by  the 
power  of  God."  It  would  be  possible  that  Justin  (Dial.  38) 
thought  of  I  Cor.  i^9-24^  or  2^-^  when  he  wrote:  "I  know  that 
the  Word  of  God  said :  This  great  wisdom  of  the  Maker  of  all 
and  the  all  powerful  God  is  concealed  from  you."  He  quotes 
(Dial.  Ill)  plainly  i  Cor.  5'':  "For  the  passover  was  the  Christ, 
who  was  sacrificed  afterwards."  Perhaps  we  may  see  i  Cor.  5^ 
in  his  words  (Dial.  14):  "  For  this  is  the  sign  of  the  unleavened 
bread,  that  ye  do  not  do  the  old  works  of  the  evil  leaven." 
Justin  (Dial.  35)  puts  in,  as  if  they  were  words  of  Jesus,  the 
phrase  :  "  For  He  said :  There  will  be  schisms  and  heresies." 
But  it  is  not  impossible  that  the  words  are  in  momentary  forget- 
fulness  assigned  to  Jesus,  and  that  they  really  are  the  reproduc- 
tion of  the  impression  made  by  i  Cor.   ii^^'^^.     When  Justin 


THE  AGE  OF  IREN^US— FIRST  CORINTHIANS      199 

(Dial.  41)  speaks  of  the  Lord's  Supper  his  phrase  recalls  i  Cor. 
jj23. 24^  He  says  that  the  offering  of  flour  for  the  one  who  had 
been  cleansed  from  leprosy  :  "  Was  a  type  of  the  bread  of  the 
eucharist,  which  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord  handed  down  to  us  to 
do  in  remembrance  of  the  passion,  which  He  suffered  for  the 
men  who  were  cleansed  as  to  their  souls  from  all  wickedness." 
At  another  place  (Dial.  70)  he  alludes  to  the  same  passage  as 
follows  :  "  It  is  clear  that  in  this  prophecy  " — from  Isaiah — 
[reference  is  made]  "to  the  bread  which  our  Christ  commanded 
us  to  do  in  memory  of  His  having  been  m.ade  body  for  the  sake 
of  those  who  beheve  on  Him,  for  whom  also  He  became  a 
suffering  one,  and  to  the  cup  which  He  commanded  us  to  do, 
giving  thanks,  in  memory  of  His  blood."  Finally,  Justin  seems 
to  be  thinking  of  i  Cor.  12^2  when  he  writes  (Dial.  42) :  "Which 
is  what  we  can  see  in  the  body.  The  whole  of  the  many 
numbered  members  are  called  and  are  one  body.  For  also  a 
community  and  a  church  being  many  men  as  to  number  are 
called  in  the  one  calling  and  are  addressed  as  being  one 
thing." 

The  essay  on  the  Resurrection,  whether  from  Justin  Martyr 
or  not,  refers  (ch.  10)  naturally  to  i  Cor.  15^2  qj-  50  qj.  53  ^nd  ^^. 
It  is  an  interesting  passage  which  proceeds  from  the  thought 
that  Jesus,  if  He  had  only  preached  the  life  of  the  soul,  would 
have  done  no  more  than  Pythagoras  and  Plato  :  "  But  now  He 
came  preaching  the  new  and  strange  hope  to  men.  For  it  was 
strange  and  new  that  God  should  promise,  not  to  keep  incorrup- 
tion  in  incorruption,  but  to  make  corruption  incorruption."  The 
Exhortation  to  the  Greeks  turns  in  its  freedom  i  Cor.  4^0 
thus  (ch.  35) :  "  For  the  operations  of  our  piety  are  not  in  words 
but  in  works."  Instead  of  operations  of  piety  we  might  say 
simply :  our  reHgion. 

Tatian  is  not  content  with  i  Cor.  7^.  Clement  of  Alexandria 
(Strom.  3.  12.  85)  tells  us  about  it :  "Therefore  he  writes  word 
for  word  in  what  he  says  about  the  state  of  mind  according  to 
the  Saviour :  Symphony  therefore  fits  well  with  prayer,  but  the 
communion  of  corruption" — by  which  he  means  the  marriage 
bed — "  destroys  the  supplication.  And  then  he  forbids  it  in  a 
repelling  way  through  the  agreement.  For  again  he  declared 
that  agreements  to  the  coming  together  were  because  of  Satan 
and  of  a  lack  of  tem[)erance,  about  to  persuade  to  serve  two 


200  THE  CANON 

masters,  through  symphony  God  and  through  not  symphony 
intemperance  and  whoredom  and  devil.  And  this  he  says 
explaining  the  apostle,  and  he  treats  the  truth  sophistically, 
building  up  a  lie  by  means  of  a  true  thing."  In  another  place 
(3.  23.  8)  Irenaeus  tells  us  that  Tatian  used  i  Cor.  15^^:  "Since 
in  Adam  we  all  die."  The  fragment  of  Muratori  places  the 
letters  to  the  Corinthians  at  the  head  of  the  list  of  Paul's 
letters,  or  names  the  Corinthian  church  as  the  first  of  the  seven 
churches  to  which  Paul  wrote.  We  know,  however,  that  the 
apostle  wrote  to  the  Thessalonian  church  first,  and  that  from 
Corinth  where  he  was  founding  a  new  church.  Athenagoras  in 
his  essay  on  the  Resurrection  (ch.  18)  quotes  i  Cor.  15^^ .  "What 
remains  is  clear  to  every  one,  that  it  is  necessary  according  to 
the  apostle  that  this  corruptible  and  fleeting  should  be  clothed 
in  incorruption."  He  used  a  less  common  Greek  word  in 
substituting  in  his  memory  fleeting  for  mortal. 

Theophilus  in  writing  to  his  heathen  friend  Autolycus  (2.  i) 
gives  us  a  touch  of  i  Cor.  i^^  or  21  or  especially  ^s^  and  a  living 
proof  of  it.  He  says :  "  Thou  knowest  and  rememberest  that 
thou  didst  suppose  that  our  word " — that  is  here  as  much  as : 
our  religion — "was  foolishness."  He  uses  the  same  passage  later 
of  heathen  who  look  down  upon  Christians.  He  may  have 
I  Cor.  2^'^-^^  in  mind  in  writing  (2.  33):  "That  shows  that  all 
the  rest  have  gone  astray,  and  that  only  we  Christians  have  given 
place  to  the  truth,  who  are  taught  by  Holy  Spirit  that  spoke  in 
the  prophets  and  announced  all  things  beforehand."  At  another 
place  (3.  2)  Theophilus  appears  to  have  i  Cor.  9-^  in  mind.  He 
writes :  "  For  in  a  certain  way  those  who  write  what  is  not  clear 
beat  the  air."  The  word  he  uses  for  not  clear  is  the  one  that 
Paul  uses  for  the  manner  of  his  running  in  the  preceding  phrase. 
Again  (i.  13)  he  alludes  to  i  Cor.  12^1:  "All  these  things 
worketh  the  wisdom  of  God."  So  also  (i.  13)  he  quoted  i  Cor. 
j^se.  37 .  "  For  if,  for  example,  perchance  a  grain  of  corn  or  of  the 
other  seeds  should  be  cast  into  the  ground,  first  it  dies  and  is  dis- 
solved, then  it  rises  and  becomes  an  ear."  He  brings  i  Cor. 
15^^  as  the  close  of  the  following  sentence  (2.  27):  "For  God 
gave  us  a  law  and  holy  commandments,  which  every  one  who 
doeth  can  be  saved  and  obtaining  the  resurrection  inherit  in- 
corruption." And  he  also  cites  i  Cor.  1553-54  briefly  (i.  7): 
"When  he  shall  put  off  that  which    is  mortal  and  put  on  im- 


THE  AGE  OF  IREN/EUS— 2  CORINTHIANS,  GALATIANS   20I 

mortality,  then  he  shall  see  God  according  to  his  deserts."  This 
collection  of  quotations  from  First  Corinthians  made  by 
Theophilus  shows  us  that,  in  spite  of  all  his  need  of  using  the 
Old  Testament,  he  knows  well  and  knows  how  to  apply  the  New 
Testament  books. 

Second  Corinthians. 

When  we  turn  to  Second  Corinthians  we  need  not  look  for 
such  a  free  and  full  use  of  it  as  of  the  First  Epistle.  It  did  not 
contain  so  much  that  was  striking.  I  question  very  much 
whether  it  is  read  so  often  to-day  as  the  First  Epistle.  So  far 
as  I  can  judge  it  is  less  frequently  made  the  object  of  university 
lectures.  The  Ophites  say  (5.  8;  p.  158  [112])  in  the  words  of 
2  Cor.  122-4:  "This  gate  Paul  the  apostle  knows,  opening  it  in 
a  mystery  and  saying  :  That  he  was  snatched  by  an  angel  and 
came  as  far  as  the  second  and  third  heaven,  to  paradise  itself, 
and  saw  what  he  saw,  and  heard  words  unspeakable,  which  it 
is  not  permitted  to  man  to  speak."  Basilides  quotes  ver.  4  at 
another  place  (7.  26;  p.  374  [241])  in  direct  words:  "I  heard 
unspeakable  words  which  it  is  not  permitted  to  man  to  speak." 
The  letter  to  Diognetus  (ch.  5)  touches  2  Cor.  10^;  "Being  in 
flesh,  but  not  living  according  to  flesh."  And  again  (ch.  5) 
the  first  part  of  2  Cor.  6^^  comes  in :  "  Being  punished  they 
rejoice  as  being  made  alive,"  and  just  before  it  the  second  part : 
"  They  are  poor  and  make  many  rich.  They  want  many  things 
and  abound  in  all  things."  Polycarp  approaches  2  Cor.  4^^ 
when  he  writes  to  the  Philippians  (ch.  2) :  "  And  He  that  raised 
Him  from  the  dead  will  also  raise  us  if  we  do  His  will  and  walk 
in  His  commandments  and  love  what  He  loved."  In  another 
place  (ch.  6)  he  combines  2  Cor.  5^0  with  Rom.  1410-  ^^,  just  as 
other  writers  did,  and  puts  Christ  instead  of  God  as  judge  :  "  And 
we  must  all  stand  before  the  judgment-seat  of  Christ,  and  each 
one  give  account  for  himself"     That  is  a  very  natural  change. 


Galatians. 

The    Epistle   to   the    Galatians   is   quoted   by  the  Ophites. 
They  say  (5.  7;  p.  138  [99])  of  their  Attis  after  Gal.  3^^  and  6^5 . 


202  THE  CANON 

"  He  has  gone  over  to  the  eternal  nature  above,  where,  they  say, 
there  is  neither  female  nor  male,  but  a  new  creation,  a  new  man, 
who  is  male  and  female."  At  another  place  Adamas  is  named 
as  male  and  female.  Explaining  a  passage  of  the  Psalms  they 
say  (5.  7 ;  p.  148  [106]) :  "That  is  from  the  confusion  below  to 
the  Jerusalem  above  which  is  the  mother  of  the  living,"  as  in 
Gal.  4^6,  which  reads  :  our  mother.  Justin  the  Gnostic  (Hipp. 
5.  26  ;  p.  226  [155])  reproduces  Gal.  5^^,  but  puts  the  soul,  the 
psyche,  instead  of  the  flesh  :  "  For  this  reason  the  soul  is  drawn 
up  against  the  spirit  and  the  spirit  against  the  soul."  Polycarp, 
just  after  mentioning  Paul  and  his  letters  to  the  Philippians, 
calls  faith  (ch.  3),  in  the  words  of  Gal.  42*^  about  Jerusalem, 
our  mother:  "Which  is  the  mother  of  us  all."  And  in  the 
words  of  Gal.  6^  he  writes  (ch.  5) :  "  Knowing  that  God  is  not 
mocked,  we  should  walk  worthily  of  His  commandment  and 
glory."  Theodotus  writes  (Fragm.  53)  from  Gal.  3^^:  "And 
Adam  had  unknown  to  himself  the  spiritual  seed  sown  into 
his  soul  by  Wisdom,  ordered  by  angels  in  the  hands  of  a 
mediator.  And  the  mediator  is  not  of  one,  but  God  is  one." 
In  another  place  (Fragm.  76)  he  touches  Gal.  32^:  "For  he 
that  is  baptized  into  God  is  taken  up  into  God."  It  is  a  vague 
remembrance  of  Galatians  that  shapes  his  phrase. 

The  Oration  to  the  Greeks,  possibly  Justin  Martyr's,  gives 
us  Gal.  4^2  in  ^  call  of  Christ's  (ch.  5):  "Come!  Learn! 
Become  as  I  am,  for  I  also  was  as  ye  are."  And  a  few  lines 
farther  on  he  takes  up  Gal.  520-  21  jn  passing  :  "  Thus  the  Logos 
drives  away  from  the  very  corners  of  the  soul  the  frightful 
things  of  sense,  first  desire,  by  means  of  which  every  frightful 
thing  is  born,  enmities,  strifes,  anger,  contending  passions,  and 
the  things  like  these."  In  two  passages  (chs.  95,  96)  in  his  Dialogue 
with  Trypho,  Justin  Martyr  quotes  Deuteronomy  in  a  form  that 
is  not  like  the  text  of  the  Septuagint,  but  is  just  like  the  form 
of  the  same  passages  given  in  Gal.  3^0  and  ^^.  It  is  not 
absolutely  impossible  that  both  Justin  and  Paul  quoted  from 
some  third  source,  some  collection  of  Old  Testament  passages, 
which  gave  the  verses  in  the  shape  found.  We  know,  however, 
nothing  of  such  an  anthology,  and  it  is  therefore  the  only  proper 
thing  to  suppose  that  Justin  quoted  the  passages  from  Galatians, 
or  rather  quoted  the  passages  in  the  words  which  Galatians 
had  impressed  on  his  memory.     Athenagoras  (Suppl.   16)  uses 


THE  AGE  OF   IREN/EUS— EPHESIANS  203 

words  from  Gal.  4^,  when,  having  stated  the  view  of  the  Peri- 
patetics that  the  world  was  God's  substance  and  body,  he 
writes :  "  We  fall  away  to  the  poor  and  weak  elements." 


Ephesians. 

The  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  i^  doubtless  moved  Clement 
of  Rome  to  write  (ch.  64) :  "  Who  chose  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
and  through  Him  us  to  be  a  special  people."  In  another  place 
(ch.  32)  he  has  in  mind  Eph.  2^  and  i^ :  "  Therefore  they  all  have 
been  glorified  and  enlarged  not  through  themselves,  or  their  works, 
or  the  righteous  deeds  that  they  have  done,  but  through  His  will." 
Again  (ch.  46)  he  brings  in  Eph.  4^-^ :  "  Or  have  we  not  one  God 
and  one  Christ  and  one  spirit  of  grace  poured  out  upon  us  and 
one  calling  in  Christ  ?  "  Probably  he  thought  of  or  was  guided 
by  Eph.  4^^  in  referring  to  the  darkened  understanding  (ch.  36) : 
"Through  this' One  (Christ)  our  foolish  and  darkened  mind 
flowers  up  into  His  wonderful  light."  The  following  passage 
(ch.  49)  reminds  us  of  Eph.  5^  :  "  In  love  the  Master  took  us  up. 
Because  of  the  love  that  He  had  towards  us  Jesus  Christ  our 
Lord  gave  His  blood  for  us  by  the  will  of  God,  and  His  flesh 
for  our  flesh  and  His  soul  for  our  souls."  In  two  places  (ch.  2 
and  38)  he  returns  to  Eph.  52^:  "Ye  were  all  humble-minded, 
boasting  not  at  all,  subjected  [to  others]  rather  than  subjecting," 
and :  "  Let  our  whole  body  be  saved  in  Christ  Jesus,  and  let 
each  one  be  subjected  to  his  neighbour  as  also  he  was  set  in 
his  grace."  The  Ophites  quote  Eph.  3!^  turned  about  (5.  7 ; 
p.  136  [97]):  "In  order  that  the  Great  Man  above  may  be 
perfectly  set  in  His  might :  From  whom,  as  they  say,  every 
fatherhood  is  constituted  on  earth  and  in  the  heavens."  As 
to  the  resurrection  they  say  (5.  7  ;  p.  146  [104])  with  Eph.  5!^: 
"  Rise  thou  that  sleepest  and  stand  up,  and  Christ  will  enlighten 
thee." 

Basilides  uses  Eph.  i^^when  he  writes  (5.  20;  p.  356  [230]): 
"  For  also  that  which  is  not  unspeakable  is  not  named  unspeak- 
able, but  is,  he  says,  above  every  name  that  is  named."  He 
speaks  also  (7.  26;  p.  374  [241])  of:  "The  mystery  which  was 
not  made  known  to  the  former  generations,  as  it  is  written,  he 
says :  According  to  revelation  the  mystery  was  made  known  to 


204  THE  CANON 

me."  That  points  to  Eph.  3^  and  ^  It  is  not  out  of  place  to 
recall  again  here  Ignatius'  exaggeration,  in  which  in  writing 
to  the  Ephesians  he  declares  that  they  were  people  who  had 
been  as  initiated  into  the  mysteries,  companions  of  Paul :  "  Who 
makes  mention  of  you  in  Christ  Jesus  in  every  Epistle."  The 
letter  to  Diognetus  (ch.  2)  takes  up  the  thought  and  in  part  the 
words  of  Eph.  421-2^ :  "  Come  now,  cleansing  thyself  from  all 
the  considerations  that  held  thy  mind  fast  before,  and  putting 
off  the  habit  of  mind  which  deceived  thee  and  becoming  as 
from  the  beginning  a  new  man,  as  also  of  a  new  way  of  thought, 
as  thou  indeed  thyself  hast  confessed,  thou  wilt  be  a  hearer." 
Polycarp  writes  (ch.  12) :  "Only  as  is  spoken  in  the  Scriptures  : 
Be  angry  and  sin  not,  and,  let  not  the  sun  go  down  upon  your 
wrath,"  adding  to  the  psalm  Eph.  4^^.  Barnabas  (ch.  6)  seems 
to  refer  to  Eph.  3^''  and  2^2  in  writing :  "  For  He  was  about 
to  appear  in  the  flesh  and  to  dwell  in  you.  For  my  brethren 
the  dwelHng  of  your  heart  is  a  temple  holy  to  the  Lord."  The 
Valentinians  (6.  35  ;  p.  284  [194])  quote  Eph.  39-10^  "And  the 
apostle :  The  mystery  which  was  not  made  known  to  the  former 
generations."  Again  (6.  34;  p.  284  [193])  they  quote  Eph.  314.16-18 . 
"This  is,  they  say,  that  which  is  written  in  the  Scripture:  For 
the  sake  of  this  I  bend  my  knees  to  God,  and  the  Father  and 
the  Lord  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  in  order  that  God  may 
give  you  that  Christ  may  dwell  in  your  inward  man,  that  is 
the  psychical  not  the  bodily,  that  ye  may  be  able  to  know  what 
is  the  depth,  which  is  the  Father  of  all  things,  and  what  is  the 
breadth,  which  is  the  Cross,  the  boundary  of  the  pleroma,  or 
what  is  the  length,  that  is  the  pleroma  of  the  ages." 

Theodotus  (Fragm.  19)  quotes  Paul  by  name  for  Eph.  42*: 
"  And  Paul :  Put  on  the  new  man  the  one  created  according  to 
God."  Again  he  writes  (Fragm.  43) :  "  The  Saviour  himself 
ascending  and  descending,  and  that  he  ascended,  what  is  it  but 
that  he  also  descended?  He  himself  is  the  one  going  down 
into  the  lowest  parts  of  the  earth  and  going  up  above  the 
heavens."  That  is  Eph.  49-10.  jje  quotes  also  (Fragm.  85) 
Eph.  6^^:  "Therefore  it  is  necessary  to  be  armed  with  the 
weapons  of  the  Lord,  having  the  body  and  the  soul  invulnerable 
with  arms  able  to  quench  the  darts  of  the  devil,  as  the  apostle 
says."  Finally,  we  have  from  him  (Fragm.  48)  Eph.  4^^ : 
"Wherefore   also    the   apostle   saith :   And   grieve  ye   not   the 


THE  AGE  OF  IREN^US— PHILIPPIANS  205 

Holy  Spirit  of  God  in  which  ye  have  been  sealed."  Hennas 
(Sim.  9.  13)  used  Eph.  4*:  "Thus  also  those  who  believed  on 
the  Lord  through  His  Son  and  are  clothed  in  these  spirits  shall 
be  unto  one  Spirit  and  unto  one  body  and  one  colour  of  their 
garments."  In  another  place  (Mand.  3)  he  touches  apparently 
Eph.  4^^ :  "  For  thou  must  needs  as  a  servant  of  God  walk 
in  truth  and  not  cause  an  evil  conscience  to  dwell  with  the 
spirit  of  truth,  nor  bring  grief  upon  the  sacred  and  true  spirit." 
Theophilus  (i.  6),  speaking  of  the  Pleiades  and  Orion  and  of  the 
rest  of  the  stars :  "  In  the  circle  of  the  heavens,  all  of  which 
the  much  varied  wisdom  of  God  called  by  their  own  names," 
refers  to  the  wisdom  mentioned  Eph.  31^.  This  he  again 
alludes  to  (2.  16):  "And  on  the  fifth  day  the  living  creatures 
came  forth  from  the  waters,  by  which  also  in  these  the  manifold 
wisdom  of  God  is  displayed."  He  seems  to  use  Eph.  4I8  when 
he  writes:  "And  this  befell  thee  because  of  the  blindness  of 
thy  soul  and  the  hardness  of  thy  heart." 


Philippians. 

As  for  the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians,  the  Sethians  (5.  19; 
p.  206  [143])  quote  Phil.  2^  saying:  "This  of  the  beast  is  the 
form  of  the  servant,  and  this  is  the  necessity  for  the  Son  of  God 
to  come  down  into  the  womb  of  the  virgin."  The  letter  to 
Diognetus  (ch.  5)  refers  to  our  citizenship  as  in  Phil.  3I8-2O: 
"They  spend  their  time  on  earth,  but  they  are  citizens  in 
heaven."  Polycarp  in  writing  to  the  Philippians  says  (ch.  3) : 
"  For  neither  I  nor  another  like  me  can  follow  up  the  wisdom 
of  the  blessed  and  glorified  Paul,  who  being  among  you  in 
person  before  the  men  of  that  day  taught  accurately  and 
most  certainly  the  word  about  truth,  who  also,  when  far  from 
you,  wrote  Epistles  to  you,  into  which  if  ye  look,  ye  shall  be 
able  to  be  built  up  in  the  faith  given  to  you."  That  sentence 
is  not  only  of  interest  as  a  testimony  to  the  existence  of  at 
least  one  letter  of  Paul's  to  the  Philippians.  It  tells  us  in  so 
many  words  something  that  plain  common  sense  must  have 
told  us  long  ago.  We  know  that  the  Philippians  were  allowed 
by  Paul  to  send  him  money  for  his  personal  support,  and  that 
they  sent  money  to  him  repeatedly  and  even  while  he  was  at 


206  THE  CANON 

Rome.  Now  no  one  could  dream  that  Paul  did  not  repeatedly 
write  to  them  to  say  that  he  had  received  their  gifts,  and  to  thank 
them  for  these  gifts.  And  here  Polycarp  tells  us  that  Paul  wrote 
letters,  not  merely  one  letter,  to  them.  The  people  who  think 
that  our  Epistle  to  the  Philippians  really  consists  of  two  or  more 
such  letters  combined  into  one  have  not  yet  convinced  me  that 
they  are  right  in  this  view.  It  is  likely  that  the  said  letters  were 
short  and  chiefly  personal,  we  might  almost  say  chiefly  occupied 
with  the  business  side  of  the  matter,  and  that  therefore  they  were 
not  saved  for  the  general  use  of  the  Church.  Again  Polycarp 
(ch.  ii)  refers  to  the  one  letter  of  Paul  to  the  Philippians,  in 
reproving  a  presbyter  who  had  gone  astray :  "  And  I  perceived 
no  such  thing  among  you,  nor  heard  of  it,  among  whom  the 
blessed  Paul  laboured,  who  are  in  the  beginning  of  his  Epistle. 
For  he  boasts  of  you  among  all  the  Churches,  which  alone  then 
knew  God,  and  we  did  not  yet  know  [him]." 

Theodotus  (Fragm.  19)  quotes  Phil.  2'':  "Whence  also  he  is 
said  to  take  the  form  of  a  servant,  not  only  the  flesh  according 
to  his  coming,  but  also  the  nature  from  the  being  subject,  and 
the  nature  of  the  servant  as  able  to  suffer  and  subject  to 
the  powerful  and  lordly  cause."  Again  (l^^agm.  35)  he  alluded 
apparently  to  the  same  verse :  "  Jesus  our  light,  as  the  apostle 
says,  having  emptied  Himself,"  that  is  according  to  Theodotus 
coming  to  be  outside  of  His  boundary,  "  since  He  was  an  angel." 
The  essay  on  the  Resurrection,  attached  to  Justin  Martyr's  works, 
quotes  (ch.  7)  Phil.  3^0 :  "  We  must  next  oppose  those  who 
dishonour  the  flesh,  and  say  that  it  is  not  worthy  of  the 
resurrection  or  of  the  heavenly  citizenship."  It  gives  it  a  second 
time  a  little  later  thus  (ch.  9) :  "  As  it  was  spoken  :  Our  dwelling 
is  in  heaven."  Theophilus  (i.  2)  uses  the  phrase  :  "Proving  the 
things  which  are  different"  which  occurs  both  in  Rom.  2^^ 
and  Phil.  i^^.  He  speaks  in  another  passage  (2.  17)  in  the  words 
of  Phil.  3^^ :  "  Of  some  men  who  do  not  know  or  worship  God, 
and  who  think  earthly  things  and  do  not  repent."  He  is 
evidently  thinking  by  means  of  Phil.  4^  when  he  writes  (2.  36) : 
"'Because  then  these  things  are  true  and  useful  and  just  and 
agreeable  to  all  men,  it  is  clear  also  that  those  doing  ill  shall 
of  necessity  be  punished  according  to  the  measure  of  their 
deeds." 


THE  AGE  OF   IREN^EUS— COLOSSIANS  20/ 


COLOSSIANS. 

For  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians  we  have  first  to  point 
to  the  Peratae,  who  quote  Col.  2^  and  say  (5.  12  ;  p.  178  [124]) : 
"This  is  what  is  spoken:  All  the  fulness" — the  pleroma — 
"pleased  to  dwell  in  him  bodily,  and  all  the  Godhead  of  the 
thus  divided  Trinity  (?)  is  in  Him."  Basilides  seems  to  touch 
Col.  2^  and  i26-27^  perhaps  with  Eph.  3^  when  he  writes  (7.  25  ; 
P-  370  [238]):  "This  is  the  mystery  which  was  not  known  to 
the  former  generations,  but  he  was  in  those  times  king  and  lord, 
as  it  seems  of  all,  the  great  prince,  the  Eight."  Theodotus 
(Fragm.  19)  gives  us  Col.  i^^:  "And  still  more  clearly  and 
exactly  in  another  place  he  [Paul]  says :  Who  is  the  image  of 
the  invisible  God,  then  he  adds  :  "  Firstborn  of  all  creation," 
and  he  proceeds  to  discuss  the  passage.  In  another  passage 
(Fragm.  43)  he  brings  Col.  ii6-i7  thus:  "And  becomes  head 
of  all  things  with  the  Father.  For  all  things  were  created  in 
him,  seen  and  unseen,  thrones,  lordships,  kingships,  godheads, 
services." 

Justin  cites  Col.  i^^  apparently  (Dial.  84):  "That  is  that 
through  the  virgin  womb  the  first  begotten  of  all  creations  having 
been  made  flesh  became  truly  a  child."  In  another  place  (Dial. 
85)  he  gives  the  title  better  :  "  For  according  to  His  name,  this 
Son  of  God  and  firstborn  of  all  creation."  Again  (Dial.  125) 
he  gives  it:  " Child  firstborn  of  all  creatures,"  using  altogether 
different  Greek  words.  But  there  is  no  question  about  it  that  he 
has  this  passage  in  his  mind.  And  still  again  (Dial.  138)  he 
writes :  "  For  Christ  being  firstborn  of  all  creation,  became  also 
a  beginning  again  of  another  race,  the  one  born  again  by  Him 
through  water  and  faith  and  wood,  which  has  the  mystery  of 
the  cross."  And  once  more  (Dial.  100)  he  says  of  Jesus: 
"Therefore  He  revealed  to  us  all  things  as  many  as  we  have 
understood  from  the  Scriptures  by  His  grace,  we  knowing  that 
He  is  firstborn  of  God  and  before  all  creatures,  and  son  of  the 
patriarchs,  since  He  was  made  flesh  through  the  virgin  from  their 
race."  He  seems  to  have  had  Col.  2'^'^- 12  in  mind  when  he  wrote 
(Dial.  43)  of  our  receiving  the  spiritual  circumcision:  "And  we 
received  it  through  baptism  on  account  of  the  mercy  which  is 
from  God,  since  we  had  become  sinners,  and  it  is  permitted  to 


208  THE  CANON 

all  to  receive  [it]  likewise."  It  may  be  that  we  should  see  in  the 
Exhortation  to  the  Greeks  (ch.  15)  an  allusion  to  Col.  i^^  in 
a  discussion  of  an  Orphic  verse :  "  He  names  voice  there  the 
Word  of  God  by  whom  were  made  heaven  and  earth  and  the 
whole  creation,  as  the  divine  prophecies  of  the  holy  men  teach 
us,  which  he  also  in  part  having  perceived  in  Egypt,  knew  that 
all  creation  took  place  by  the  Word  of  God." 

Theophilus  also  (2.  22),  like  Justin  Martyr,  quotes  Col.  i^^: 
"  And  when  God  wished  to  make  what  He  had  determined  upon. 
He  begot  this  forth-proceeding  Word,  a  firstborn  of  all  creation, 
not  that  He  was  emptied  of  His  Word,  but  that  He  begot  a 
Word  and  converses  ever  with  the  Word."  Speaking  of  the  just 
(2.  17)  he  uses  Col.  3^:  "Like  birds  they  fly  upward  in  their 
soul,  thinking  the  things  which  are  above  and  being  well-pleasing 
to  the  will  of  God." 


First  and  Second  Thessalonians. 

First  Thessalonians  comes  to  view  in  Ignatius'  letter  (ch.  10) 
to  the  Ephesians,  where  he  touches  i  Thess.  5^'':  "And  for  the 
rest  of  men  pray  without  ceasing."  Polycarp  brings  the  thought 
of  I  Thess.  5^'^  in  writing  to  the  Philippians  (ch.  4)  when  he  says  of 
the  widows  that  they  :  "  Should  intercede  without  ceasing  for  all." 
We  gave  above  Dionysius  of  Corinth's  words  to  the  Church  at 
Rome  in  which  he  reverted  to  the  thought  of  i  Thess.  2^^, 
comforting  the  distressed  as  a  father  his  children.  Polycarp 
quotes  directly  Second  Thessalonians  in  speaking  (ch.  11)  of 
the  erring  presbyter  Valentus  and  his  wife.  He  writes  :  "  Be  ye 
therefore  also  moderate  (sober)  in  this  matter,  and  do  not  regard 
such  people  as  enemies,  but  call  them  back  as  suffering  and  erring 
members,  so  that  ye  may  save  your  whole  body,"  see  2  Thess.  3^^ 
Justin  Martyr  (Dial,  no)  applies  2  Thess.  2^'*:  "Two  of  His 
comings  are  announced :  the  one,  in  which  He  is  preached  as 
suffering  and  without  glory  and  dishonoured  and  crucified ;  and 
the  second,  in  which  He  will  come  with  glory  from  the  heavens, 
when  also  the  man  of  the  apostasy,  who  also  speaks  lofty  things 
to  the  Most  High,  will  dare  upon  the  earth  lawless  deeds  against 
us  the  Christians." 


THE  AGE   OF   IREN^US— THESS.,   HEBREWS         209 


Hebrews. 

The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  the  book  of  the  New  Testament 
that  comes  before  our  eyes  in  such  abundance  in  that  first  great 
letter  of  the  generation  following  upon  the  time  of  the  apostles, 
in  Clement  of  Rome.  Quoting  Heb.  i^,  Clement  writes  (ch.  36) : 
"  Through  this  one  " — Christ — "  the  Master  wished  that  we 
should  taste  of  the  undying  wisdom,  who  being  the  reflection  of 
His  greatness,  is  so  much  greater  than  the  angels,  as  He  inherited 
a  more  excellent  name  [than  they]."  Yet  the  quotation  is  a  very 
free  one.  We  know  that  nothing  else  is  to  be  looked  for.  Im- 
mediately afterwards  he  gives  the  Old  Testament  quotations  found 
in  Heb.  i^  and  "  and  ^^,  and  we  must  presuppose  that  he  takes 
them  from  that  Epistle  and  not  directly  from  the  given  psalms. 
See  how  freely  Clement  (ch.  17)  quotes  Heb.  ii^'':  "Let  us 
become  imitators  also  of  those  who  walked  about  in  goatskins 
and  sheepskins  heralding  the  coming  of  Christ."  Hermas  (Vis. 
2.  3)  touches  Heb.  3^2 .  <«  gu^  ^\^q  ^q^  departing  from  the  living 
God  saves  thee,  and  thy  simplicity  and  much  temperance." 

Justin  Martyr  shows  that  he  knows  this  Epistle,  and  that  3^ 
by  the  way  in  which  he  in  his  Apology  calls  Jesus  an  apostle, 
for  He  is  only  called  so  in  that  verse.  In  one  passage  (ch.  12) 
Justin  writes :  "  For  He  foretold  that  all  these  things  should 
come  to  pass,  I  say,  being  our  teacher  and  the  son  and  apostle 
of  the  Father  of  all  and  ruler  God,  Jesus  Christ,  from  whom  also 
we  have  our  being  named  Christians."  In  another  passage 
(ch.  62)  he  says :  "  And  the  Word  of  God  is  His  Son,  as  we 
said  before.  And  He  is  called  angel  and  apostle.  For  He 
Himself  announces  whatever  needs  be  known,  and  is  sent  pro- 
claiming whatever  is  declared,  as  also  our  Lord  Himself  said : 
He  that  heareth  Me  heareth  Him  that  sent  Me."  Theophilus 
(2.  25)  refers  to  Heb.  5^2^  which  we  saw  that  Pinytus  the  bishop 
of  Cnossus  on  Crete  used  in  writing  to  the  Bishop  Dionysius  of 
Corinth.  Theophilus  says :  "  For  also  now  when  a  child  has 
been  born  it  cannot  at  once  eat  bread,  but  is  brought  up  at  first 
on  milk,  then  with  advancing  years  it  comes  also  to  solid  food." 
He  applies  that  then  to  Adam.  Only  a  few  lines  farther  on  he 
gives  us  Heb.  12^:  "And  if  it  be  necessary  that  children  be  sub- 
ject to  their  parents,  how  much  more  to  the  God  and  Father  of  all." 
14 


lO  THE  CANON 


First  and  Second  Timothy. 


Clement  of  Rome  knows  First  Timothy.  He  touches  i  Tim. 
2^  and  5^  in  writing  (ch.  7) :  "And  let  us  see  what  is  good  and 
what  is  pleasing  and  what  is  acceptable  before  Him  that  made 
us."  Polycarp  (ch.  4)  quotes  i  Tim.  6^^  and  '':  "And  the 
beginning  of  all  ills  is  the  love  of  money.  Knowing  then  that 
we  brought  nothing  into  the  world,  but  neither  have  we  any- 
thing to  take  out  [of  it]."  But  we  see  how  freely  he  quotes  from 
memory.  We  could  imagine  that  Basilides  (7.  22  ;  p.  360  [232]) 
was  guided  in  his  words :  "  Increasing  them  by  addition,  espe- 
cially at  the  necessary  times,"  by  i  Tim.  2^,  since,  although  he  says 
"necessary  times,"  he  uses  for  "especially"  the  word  attached  by 
Paul  to  "  times."  The  letter  to  Diognetus  (ch.  4)  reminds  us  of 
I  Tim.  3^^ :  "  Do  not  think  that  you  can  learn  from  men  the 
mystery  of  their  especial  godliness."  Barnabas  quotes  (ch.  12) 
from  the  same  verse :  "  Behold  again  Jesus,  not  a  son  of  man 
but  a  son  of  God,  and  by  a  type  revealed  in  flesh."  The  essay 
on  the  Resurrection  (ch.  8)  touches  i  Tim.  2^ :  "  Or  do  they  think 
that  God  is  envious?  But  He  is  good,  and  wishes  all  to  be 
saved."  Athenagoras  closes  his  apology  (ch.  37)  to  Marcus 
Aurelius  and  Commodus  most  fitly  by  quoting  i  Tim.  2^ :  "And 
this  is  what  suits  us,  that  we  may  pass  a  calm  and  quiet  life, 
and  we  ourselves  will  obey  eagerly  all  that  is  commanded."  In 
another  place  (ch.  1 6)  he  uses  two  words  from  i  Tim.  6^^ :  "  For 
God  Himself  is  all  things  to  Himself,  light  unapproachable,  a 
perfect  world,  spirit,  power,  word."  We  saw  above  that  Theo- 
philus  quoted  i  Tim.  2^.  Barnabas  quotes  (ch.  7)  2  Tim.  4^ : 
"The  Son  of  God  being  Lord,  and  going  to  judge  living  and 
dead."  Heracleon  (CI.  Al.  Strom.  4.  9.  72)  quotes  2  Tim.  2^^ 
in  his  most  exact  discussion  of  denial :  "  On  which  account  He 
can  never  deny  Himself." 

Titus. 

Titus  is  quoted  by  Clement  of  Rome  (ch.  2) :  "Be  not  ready 
to  repent  of  any  kind  deed,  ready  to  every  good  work,"  Titus  3I. 
Perhaps  he  afterwards  thinks  of  Titus  2'^'^  in  writing  (ch.  64) :  "  Who 
chose  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  us  by  Him  to  be  a  peculiar 


THE  AGE   OF   IREN^EUS— TIM.,   TIT.,   REVELATION       211 

people."  As  for  Tatian,  we  have  direct  testimony  from  Jerome 
that  he  insisted  upon  the  genuineness  of  Titus.  Perhaps  Titus 
2^2  guides  Theophilus  in  writing  of  God  (3.  9):  "Who  also 
teaches  us  to  act  justly  and  to  be  pious  and  to  do  good."  In 
another  passage  (2.  16)  he  takes  God's  blessing  the  beasts  from 
the  waters  on  the  fifth  day  as  a  sign  that :  "  Men  were  about  to 
receive  repentance  and  remission  of  sins  through  water  and  bath 
of  the  new  birth,  those  approaching  in  truth  and  born  anew  and 
receiving  blessing  from  God,"  Titus  3^. 


Philemon. 

Of  course,  we  cannot  look  for  many  references  to  the  tiny 
letter  to  Philemon.  There  is,  however,  a  curious  Hkeness,  even 
in  some  of  the  words  used,  between  a  paragraph  in  Ignatius' 
letter  to  the  Ephesians  (ch.  2)  and  the  letter  to  Philemon  (^-  ^o). 


Revelation. 

We  have  reached  the  last  book,  the  book  of  Revelation.  The 
strange  fate  of  this  book  must  be  dealt  with  again.  Here  we 
have  at  first  to  recall  what  was  above  said  as  to  the  way  in  which 
it  was  connected  with  Cerinthus.  Cerinthus  would,  so  far  as  we 
can  see,  have  written  an  entirely  different  book,  and  it  is  even 
probable  that  he  wrote  one  or  more  books  in  imitation  of  this  book. 
Nevertheless  it  was  conjectured  in  the  third  century  that  he  was 
the  author  of  it  itself.  This  was  early  criticism.  But  it  was  too 
late  to  be  informed.  Perhaps  the  Ophites  drew  from  Rev.  2-*. 
Hippolytus  (5.  6;  p.  132  [94])  says  of  them:  "After  this  they 
called  themselves  Gnostics,  saying  that  they  alone  knew  the 
depths."  I  am  not  inclined  to  think  that  they  got  the  words 
from  this  passage.  It  would  in  the  same  way  be  possible  to 
connect  the  twenty-four  angels  of  Justin  the  Gnostic  with  Rev.  4*, 
and  the  twenty-four  elders.  Justin  the  Gnostic  says  (Hipp.  5.  26 ; 
pp.  218,  220  [151]):  "Of  these  four-and-twenty  angels  the 
fatherly  ones  accompany  the  Father  and  do  all  things  according 
to  His  will,  and  the  motherly  ones  the  mother  Eden.  And  the 
multitude  of  all  these  angels  together  is  paradise." 


212  THE  CANON 

Hernias  describes  the  Church  (Vis.  4.  2)  in  words  drawn  from 
Rev.  21- :  "After  the  beast  had  passed  me  and  had  gone  on 
about  thirty  feet,  behold  a  virgin  met  me  adorned  as  going  out 
from  the  bridal  chamber."  He  often  uses  the  thoughts  and  the 
words  of  Revelation.  The  Marcosians,  speaking  of  the  descent 
of  the  dove  at  the  baptism  of  Jesus,  say  (Iren.  i.  14.  6) :  "  Which 
is  Omega  and  Alpha."  In  another  place  (i.  15.  i)  they  again 
insist  upon  the  connection  of  the  number  of  the  dove  with  Alpha 
and  Omega.  The  Greek  letters  of  the  word  for  dove  count  up 
to  eight  hundred  and  one,  and  that  is  the  numerical  value  of 
Alpha  and  Omega.  They  probably  drew  the  two  letters  from 
Rev.  i^.  We  observed  above  that  Justin  Martyr  named  John 
as  the  author  of  Revelation.  He  quotes  Rev.  20^  as  follows  in 
his  Apology  (ch.  28) :  "  For  with  us  the  chief  of  the  evil  demons 
is  called  serpent  and  Satan  and  devil,  as  also  you  can  learn, 
searching  out  of  our  writings."  Eusebius  tells  us  that  Theo- 
philus  quoted  from  Revelation.  Irenaeus  (5.  35.  2)  quotes 
Rev.  2oi5 :  "  And  if  anyone,  it  says,  is  not  found  written  in  the 
Book  of  Life,  he  is  sent  into  the  lake  of  fire."  He  adds  then 
21^-*.  Just  before  he  names  John  as  author  of  the  Revelation, 
and  quotes  three  other  passages. 

We  have  approached  the  end  of  the  second  century  and  we 
stand  at  the  year  190,  or  between  190  and  200.  We  have  seen 
that,  with  varying  exactness  or  with  varying  freedom  and  looseness, 
the  writers  of  these  early  years  of  Christianity  have  shown  that 
they  knew  and  treasured  many  of  the  books  of  the  New 
Testament.  We  have  already  by  thoroughly  unimpeachable 
witnesses  shown  that  the  greater  part  of  the  books  of  the  New 
Testament  are  at  this  time  in  general  use  in  the  Church,  and  that 
the  use  made  of  them  assigns  to  them  a  special  value.  Not  only 
the  writers  who  are  in  positions  of  authority  in  many  of  the 
scattered  societies  of  the  regular  Christians,  but  also  a  number 
of  those  who  are  leaders  in  groups  of  Christians,  who  for  different 
reasons  have  separated  themselves  from  or  have  been  declared 
foreign  to  the  usual,  general  line  of  churches  and  Christians,  have 
shown  by  the  way  in  which  they  name,  or  allude  to,  or  copy  as 
models,  or  quote  these  books,  that  they  consider  them  as  of  a 
peculiar  as  of  the  highest  religious  authority.  In  so  far  as  anyone 
may  be  inclined  to  lay  stress  upon  the  fact  that  the  quotations 
are  often  loose,  and  may  wish  to  draw  the  conclusion  that  the 


THE  AGE  OF  IREN^US— READING   IN   CHURCH      21 3 

books  were  not  highly  valued,  it  is  pertinent  to  point  out  that  we 
have  found  a  like  looseness  also  in  quotations  from  the  books  of 
the  Old  Testament,  the  normative  value  of  which  was  supposed 
to  be  certainly  fixed. 

We  saw  some  distance  back  that  the  first  books  used  in  the 
Christian  churches  for  public  reading  were  the  books  of  the 
Old  Testament,  and  that  these  alone  could  lay  claim  to  be  read 
as  of  divine  authority,  as  writings  that  speak  from  God  to  man. 
The  question  now  arises  for  us,  whether  we  can  at  this  point 
discover  any  change  in  the  books  read  in  church,  whether  we 
can  detect  any  change  in  the  way  in  which  given  books  are 
read.  At  the  earlier  period  the  liturgical  division  :  God  to  Man, 
contained  only  these  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  it  was 
even  a  question  whether  all  of  them  were  really  firmly  settled  as 
authoritative.  The  books  of  the  New  Testament  at  that  time 
were  read  in  the  division,  the  liturgical  division  :  Man  to  Man, 
had  the  same  right  to  be  read  as  a  sermon,  a  letter  by  a  bishop, 
or  any  instructive  Christian  treatise.  No  one  thought  of  them 
as  standing  on  a  line  with  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  which 
claimed  an  unimpeachable  divine  authority.  It  is  above  all  clear 
that  we  have  nowhere  during  the  course  of  our  investigations 
seen  any  tokens  of  an  official  declaration  touching  the  public 
reading.  But  it  is  also  clear  from  the  slight  hints  here  and  there 
as  to  the  reading  of  books,  and  from  the  now  distinct  attachment 
to  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  of  the  words  ''  it  is  written," 
"  it  is  spoken,"  or  "  scripture,"  that  these  books  are  looked  upon 
as  fully  equal  to  those  of  the  Old  Testament.  Going  back  to  the 
beginning,  we  must,  if  I  am  not  mistaken,  conceive  of  the  process 
in  the  following  way,  not  forgetting  that  we  are  reasoning  from 
common  sense  and  not  drawing  from  documents,  but  also  insisting 
upon  it  that  the  documents  say  nothing  which  makes  this  view  of 
the  process  impossible  or  even  improbable. 

The  churches  which  received  the  Epistles  of  Paul  read  these 
Epistles  in  their  gatherings,  ever  and  again  as  part  of  the  division  : 
Man  to  Man.  The  supposition  that  they  read  such  Epistles  but 
once  or  at  most  two  or  three  times  is  manifestly  absurd.  It  is 
absurd  because  of  the  importance  of  the  Epistles,  the  lack  of  much 
other  matter,  and  the  need  of  material  for  the  weekly  or  even 
more  frequent  services.  And  it  is  absurd  from  the  view  of  the 
documents.     For  if  the  letter  of  Clement  of  Rome  was  repeatedly 


214  THE  CANON 

read  at  Corinth,  and  was  read  in  other  churches  as  well,  of  course 
as :  Man  to  Man,  much  more  will  the  letters  of  Paul  to  the 
Corinthians  and  to  other  churches  have  been  repeatedly  read  before 
the  assembled  Christians.  Precisely  how  often  they  were  read 
and  re-read  cannot  be  determined.  We  have  no  reason  to  sup- 
pose that  at  the  first  any  rule  was  made  as  to  this  point. 

It  may  be  observed  here  in  a  parenthesis  that  the  Old  Testa- 
ment was  probably  read  originally  in  the  Christian  assemblies 
about  in  the  same  way  as  in  the  synagogues.  That  is  the  only 
reasonable  supposition.  The  earliest  Christians  were  largely  Jews, 
and  may  even  often  have  continued  to  visit  synagogues  after 
becoming  Christians.  They  were  used  to  reading  given  books  at 
given  times  in  given  quantities,  and  the  natural  impulse  will  have 
been  still  to  do  the  same.  Moreover,  it  is  likely  that  this  habit,  the 
habit  of  reading  the  Old  Testament  as  the  Jews  did,  passed  over 
to  such  Christian  communities,  where  there  were  such,  which 
were  entirely  of  heathen  birth.  The  given  thing  was  to  do  as  the 
others  did.  The  apostles  and  preachers  who  brought  the  Gospel 
to  them  will  certainly  have  proceeded  according  to  their  custom, 
and  have  handed  down  this  custom  to  the  newly  planted 
churches. 

To  return  to  our  main  topic,  the  division  God  to  Man  con- 
tained the  Old  Testament.  The  division  Man  to  Man  contained 
a  verbal  proclamation  of  the  Gospel.  This  may  have  been  by  a 
passing  apostle — a  wandering  preacher,  but  must  in  the  larger 
number  of  cases  have  been  by  a  man  from  the  given  church. 
In  very  many  cases  this  last,  merely  local  preacher  will  have  had 
little  to  say,  or  there  will  even  have  been  no  one  in  the  church 
who  could  pretend  to  speak  to  the  rest.  Here  a  letter  from  an 
apostle  like  Paul  will  have  often  been  used,  as  soon  as  the  church 
could  get  possession  of  one.  So  soon,  however,  as  the  Gospels 
were  written,  these  accounts  of  the  words  and  deeds  of  Jesus 
must  have  been  eagerly  welcomed  in  such  smaller  communities 
as  were  unable  to  find  regular  speakers  for  their  meetings,  and  as 
were  able  to  buy  a  Gospel.  This  Gospel  will  then  have  been  read, 
as  the  Epistles  of  Paul  were  read,  in  the  part :  Man  to  Man.  It 
will  have  replaced  or  been  used  as  a  substitute  for  the  not  avail- 
able wandering  preacher  who  brought  word  of  Jesus.  This  is  the 
first  stage  of  the  public  use  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament, 
to  which  we  called  attention  above. 


THE  AGE  OF   IREN^US— READING   IN   CHURCH      21 5 

The  number  of  churches  increased  rapidly,  and  the  size  of 
the  churches  in  the  great  centres  grew.  The  consequence  was 
that  the  number  of  apostles,  of  wandering  preachers,  was  no 
longer  in  a  position  to  supply  the  calls  for  their  services.  And, 
since  we  have  no  reason  to  suppose  that  a  large  succession  of 
such  wandering  preachers  —  much  as  Eusebius  presses  the 
missionary  spirit  at  the  time  of  Pantsenus — ,  such  missionaries, 
continued  and  enlarged  their  sphere,  these  preachers  will  have 
become  more  and  more  rare.  Thus  the  demand  increased, 
whereas  the  supply  diminished.  This  forced  the  Christian 
communities  to  lay  more  stress  upon  the  written  Gospel,  to 
secure  for  themselves  in  some  measure  words  of  Jesus  and 
words  of  the  apostles  to  fill  up  the  part  of  the  church  services 
denoted  as  Man  to  Man.  The  intense  interest  attaching  to 
this  newer  literature,  and  the  wish  to  have  variety  in  it  and  to 
possess  it  in  all  its  fulness,  will  have  led  to  the  interchange  of 
books  between  the  churches,  to  the  sending  of  copies  of  books 
to  churches  that  did  not  own  any  or  precisely  the  given  books. 
With  the  increase  in  the  amount  of  this  newer  literature  its 
peculiar  value  began  to  dawn  upon  the  Christian  mind. 

What  the  Christians  wished  to  know  of,  to  hear  of,  to  discuss, 
was  not  the  Messiah  of  the  Old  Testament  who  was  in  the  Old 
Testament  future,  but  the  Jesus  of  the  New  Testament  who 
had  already  come,  and  the  Christ  who  was  still  and  soon  to 
return  to  earth  and  to  them  who  belonged  to  Him.  Therefore 
the  reading  of  the  new  books  demanded  and  secured  more  and 
more  attention,  and  this  reading  assumed  in  the  weekly  services 
a  more  and  more  important  position.  This  was,  I  take  it,  an 
absolute  necessity,  and  need  not  in  the  least  be  placed  in 
connection  with  thoughts  of  a  violent  opposition  to  or  of  a 
dislike  to  Judaism  and  a  consequent  turning  away  from  the 
Jewish  books.  From  the  middle  of  the  second  century  onwards 
Judaism  loses  its  weight  as  an  opponent  of  Christianity,  in  so 
far  as  it  had  not  lost  it  immediately  after  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem.  Justin  Martyr's  discussion  with  Trypho  may  be 
taken  as  a  combination  of  his  and  that  Jew's  philosophical  and 
rabbinical  disposition  to  debate  upon  the  questions  common 
to  them,  or  as  a  treatise  due  from  the  Greek  Neapolitan  to  his 
Hebrew  countrymen,  or  as  a  first  Christology  of  the  Old 
Testament  with   the  vivid  background  offered  by  Trypho  and 


2l6  THE  CANON 

his  friends,  but  not  as  a  sign  that  at  that  day  the  relations  of 
Christianity  to  Judaism  as  such  filled  an  extremely  large  space 
in  Christian  thought  and  life. 

All  in  all  it  seems  to  me  to  be  likely  that  before  the  middle 
of  the  second  century  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  in 
general,  and  I  may  name  the  four  Gospels  and  the  Epistles  of 
Paul  in  particular,  had  passed  over  from  the  liturgical  division 
Man  to  Man  into  the  division  God  to  Man.  That  in  some  places 
doubts  should  have  arisen  as  to  whether  one  book  or  another 
belonged  within  or  without  the  peculiarly  sacred  books  was  not 
strange.  It  was  the  less  strange  because  even  then  some  of  the 
books  of  the  Old  Testament  were  scarcely  fixed  in  their  position 
of  strictly  normative  value. 

A  single  suggestion  is  here  in  place.  It  is  constantly  argued, 
from  the  presence  of  other  than  New  Testament  books  in  the 
Sinaitic,  the  Vatican,  and  the  Alexandrian  manuscripts  of  the 
Greek  Bible,  that  the  said  books  were  at  the  places  at  which 
those  manuscripts  were  written  regarded  as  fully  equal  to  the 
books  of  the  New  Testament.  It  seems  to  me  to  be  a  question 
whether  at  that  early  date  this  conclusion  is  valid.  As  regards 
the  Sinaitic  and  the  Vatican  manuscripts,  I  think  it  likely  that 
they  are  among  the  earliest  leaf-books  and  among  the  earliest 
complete  Bibles,  among  the  earliest  books  which  brought  together 
the  many  rolls  which  till  then  had  contained  the  Scriptures. 
Under  these  circumstances  I  think  it  possible  that  the  other 
books  were  added  to  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  for  con- 
venience in  use  in  the  church  services,  without  an  intention  on 
the  part  of  those  who  inserted  them  in  the  manuscript  to  say  that 
they  were  divine  Scripture.  This  is,  I  think,  possible.  But  it  is 
necessary  to  insist  upon  the  point  urged  above,  that  uncertainties 
and  doubts  as  to  various  books  are  under  such  circumstances 
thoroughly  natural  and  to  be  looked  for. 

It  should  at  this  place  be  observed,  that  the  number  of 
books  that  were  written  up  to  this  time  was  not  very  great,  but 
it  is  still  more  important  to  emphasise  the  fact  that  so  few  of 
those  written  have  been  preserved  to  us.  Had  we  more  books, 
even  heretical  ones,  we  should  have  more  testimony. 

It  is  clear  that  the  question  as  to  the  existence  of  a  New 
Testament  book  is  not  to  be  confounded  with  the  question  as 
to  its  general  acceptance  and  authoritative  valuation.     The  three 


THE  AGE  OF   IREN^US— READING   IN   CHURCH      217 

synoptic  Gospels  found  their  way  gradually  into  general  use. 
The  Gospel  of  John  must  have  found  immediate  acceptance. 
The  book  of  Acts  was  unquestionably  in  existence  at  an  early 
date,  but  may  not  have  become  generally  used  before  the 
middle  of  the  second  century.  First  Peter  gradually  found 
acceptance.  First  John  doubtless  accompanied,  or  followed 
close  upon  the  heels  of,  the  Gospel.  The  other  Catholic  Epistles 
we  have  still  to  deal  with.  The  Epistles  of  Paul  found  severally 
and  locally  immediate  acceptance,  and  probably  at  a  very  early 
date  general  spread  and  acceptance.  The  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  is,  as  we  have  seen,  testified  to  before  the  close  of  the 
first  century,  yet  it  found,  as  we  shall  see,  difficulty  in  some 
quarters  at  a  later  time.  The  book  of  Revelation  was  curiously 
enough  generally  accepted  at  an  early  date,  but  fell  afterwards 
into  discredit  in  some  districts,  and  will  therefore  again  attract 
our  attention. 

The  last  point  that  we  need  to  allude  to  is  the  important 
fact  that  up  to  this  time,  up  to  the  time  of  Irenseus,  up  about 
to  the  close  of  the  second  century,  we  have  not  found  the  least 
sign  of  anything  like  an  official  declaration  as  to  the  canonicity 
of  any  one  book  or  of  a  number  of  the  books  of  the  New 
Testament. 

"teaving  this  period,  we  advance  to  a  new  one  in  which  we 
no  longer  have  to  search  with  a  lantern  for  signs  of  the  presence 
and  use  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  in  general.  Our 
eyes  will  now  be  directed  to  three  things.  We  shall  seek  for 
signs,  first,  of  a  certain  and  sure  act  making  the  books  of  the 
New  Testament  canonical ;  and  secondly,  of  the  use  and  apprecia- 
tion of  seven  books  that  have  thus  far  failed  to  attain  such 
general  recognition  as  the  rest;  and  thirdly,  of  the  use  and 
appreciation  of  other  books,  be  they  totally  apocryphal  or  be 
they  nearly  equivalent  to  the  acknowledged  books. 


2l8 


IV. 
THE  AGE  OF  ORIGElSr, 

200-300. 

In  passing  from  the  second  to  the  third  century  we  enter  into  a 
totally  new  scene.  The  landscape,  the  persons,  the  movements 
in  the  new  age  are  of  an  entirely  different  character  from  those 
in  the  period  left  behind.  Between  Clement  of  Rome  in  the 
year  95,  and  Irenseus  in  the  year,  say,  185,  in  Lyons,  we  had  to 
flit  about  from  Antioch  to  Smyrna,  from  Nabulus  to  Ephesus, 
from  Philippi  to  Rome,  and  to  Lyons.  And  no  orthodox  or 
regular  writer  was  with  certainty  to  be  fixed  in  Africa.  Now  we 
have  in  the  main  to  do  with  Africa  alone,  although  we  may 
make  some  excursions  into  other  lands.  The  persons  who 
attracted  our  attention  during  the  second  century  were  out  of 
very  different  lands,  but  all  of  them  wrote  Greek.  The  five  men 
whom  we  have  to  discuss  during  the  third  century  are  all  of 
them,  at  least  by  residence  if  not  by  birth,  Africans,  and  two 
of  them  are  Latin  writers.  The  men  treated  of  before  were  of 
varied  occupations,  though  largely  officials  of  a  more  or  less 
definite  standing  in  various  churches.  Justin  Martyr  wore  the 
robe  of  a  philosopher.  Hegesippus  was  a  traveller.  Turning 
to  the  third  century,  we  have  to  do  with  three  professors  of 
theology,  with  one  lawyer,  and  with  a  single  bishop.  And  the 
movements  that  occur  are  of  another  description.  Those  schools 
of  Gnostics  find  no  rival  in  the  new  period.  No  heretic  arises 
to  outdo  Marcion.  No  one  vies  with  Tatian  in  harmonising  and 
condensing  the  four  Gospels  into  one. 

Our  aim  now  is  to  be  on  the  watch  for  signs  of  any  action 
canonising  books,  to  examine  most  closely  all  that  pertains  to 


THE  AGE  OF  ORIGEN— CLEMENT  OF   ALEXANDRIA      219 

the  use  and  the  Church  standing  of  the  seven  books, — James, 
Second  Peter,  Second  and  Third  John,  Jude,  Hebrews,  and 
Revelation,  —  and  to  mark  what  books  approach  in  use  and 
valuation  the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  and  how  they  are 
treated.  The  first  of  these  three  points  calls  for  no  recapitula- 
tion. As  to  the  second,  we  found  already  for  James  a  possible 
testimony  in  Clement  of  Rome,  a  sure  one  in  Hermas,  and  a 
probable  one  in  the  Old-Syrian  translation, — for  Second  Peter 
no  particle  of  testimony, — for  Second  and  Third  John  the  testi- 
mony of  the  fragment  of  Muratori, — for  Jude  also  Muratori, — 
for  Hebrews  the  abundant  testimony  of  Clement  of  Rome,  and 
that  of  Justin  Martyr,  of  Pinytus,  bishop  of  Cnossus  on  Crete; 
and  of  Theophilus  of  Antioch, — and  for  Revelation  the  testi- 
mony of  Hermas,  of  the  Marcosians,  and  of  Theophilus  and 
Irenaeus,  possibly  of  Papias  and  Melito ;  while  Justin  Martyr 
expressly  names  John  as  its  author.  The  recapitulation  for  the 
third  point  we  leave  until  the  close  of  this  period,  where  we  shall 
sum  up  all  that  needs  to  be  said  of  these  companions  to  the 
books  of  the  New  Testament,  and  of  their  fate  in  the  Church 
from  the  beginning  until  to-day. 

If  we  only  knew  more  of  Pantsenus  we  should  probably  have 
to  place  him  at  the  head  of  the  line  of  scholars  in  this  age. 
He  was  towards  the  close  of  the  second  century  the  teacher, 
the  director,  of  the  theological  school  in  Alexandria,  and  had, 
it  is  likely,  before  taking  charge  of  the  school,  gone  as  a 
missionary  to  the  East,  reaching  India  and  finding  that  the 
Apostle  Bartholomew  had  preceded  him  there,  and  had  left 
behind  him  the  Gospel  according  to  Matthew  in  Hebrew.  His 
pupil  Clement  succeeded  him  in  the  school.  The  school  has 
been  supposed  by  some  to  date  from  the  time  of  Mark's  stay 
in  Alexandria.  We  have  not  any  reliable  ground  for  that  state- 
ment, yet  it  is  quite  possible  that  Pantaenus  had  known  disciples 
of  the  apostles. 

Clement,  to  whom  we  now  have  to  turn,  tells  us  of  his 
own  teachers,  including  Pantaenus,  and  shows  us  that  the 
frequency  and  the  extent  of  the  intercourse  among  the 
churches  and  Christians  of  his  day  was  no  less  than  that 
which  we  have  become  acquainted  with  during  the  previous 
period.  It  is  at  the  beginning  of  his  great  work  called  the 
Carpets.     He  writes  of  this  work  :  "  And  now  this  affair  is  not 


220  THE  CANON 

a  book  artistically  composed  for  show,  but  it  treasures  up 
memories  for  me  for  old  age,  an  antidote  for  forgetfulness,  an 
image  without  art,  and  a  picture  of  those  real  and  soulful  saintly 
men,  and  truly  worthy  of  praise,  whose  words  I  had  the  honour 
of  hearing.  Of  these  one  was  in  Greece,  the  Ionian,  and  one 
in  Great  Greece  (Southern  Italy),  another  of  them  was  from 
Coele-Syria,  and  one  from  Egypt,  and  others  throughout  the 
East,  where  one  was  from  the  Assyrians,  one  in  Palestine  by 
origin  a  Hebrew,  and  meeting  the  last  one — this  one  was  in 
power  the  first — I  stopped,  having  hunted  after  hidden  things  in 
Egypt.  The  bee,  in  reality  Sicilian,  harvesting  the  flowers  both 
of  the  prophetic  and  of  the  apostolic  meadow,  implanting  a 
true  thing  of  knowledge  in  the  souls  of  his  hearers.  But  they 
preserving  the  pure  tradition  of  the  blessed  teaching  directly 
both  from  Peter  and  James,  both  from  John  and  Paul  of  the 
holy  apostles,  son  receiving  it  from  father — but  few  were  those 
like  unto  the  fathers — came  then  with  God  also  to  us  sowing 
those  ancestral  and  apostolical  seeds."  It  is  a  pity  that  Clement 
did  not  name  his  teachers.  Nevertheless  the  testimony  for  the 
wide  acquaintance  of  Clement  with  scholars  from  all  parts  of  the 
empire,  and  for  the  frequent  communication  between  distant 
countries,  remains. 

The  information  that  we  wish  for  from  Clement  we  get 
through  Eusebius,  who  describes  Clement's  work,  named 
Sketches,  as  follows  (H.  E.  6.  14):  "And  in  the  Sketches, 
speaking  briefly,  he  makes  short  comments  on  all  the  testa- 
ment-ed  Scripture," — on  all  the  books  in  the  two  Testaments, 
one  would  think,  seeing  that  he  treated  at  least  of  some  Old 
Testament  books, — "  not  passing  by  the  books  that  are  spoken 
against,  I  mean  the  Epistle  of  Jude  and  the  rest  of  the  Catholic 
Epistles,  and  both  Barnabas  and  the  Revelation  called  Peter's. 
And  he  says  that  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  Paul's,  and  was 
written  to  the  Hebrews  in  the  Hebrew  tongue ;  and  that  Luke, 
having  translated  it  carefully,  published  it  for  the  Greeks,  for 
which  reason  the  same  colouring  is  found  in  the  translation  of 
this  Epistle  as  in  the  Acts.  And  that  the  usual,  Paul  the 
Apostle,  was  not  written  at  the  beginning  of  the  letter,  probably, 
he  says,  because,  writing  to  the  Hebrews,  who  had  taken  a 
prejudice  to  him,  and  suspected  him,  he,  with  thorough  prudence, 
did   not   at   the   outset  rebuff    them   by  putting  in  his  name. 


THE  AGE  OF  ORIGEN— CLEMENT  OF  ALEXANDRIA   221 

Then  he  (Clement)  adds  farther  on :  "  And  as  even  the  blessed 
presbyter"  —  he  seems  to  mean  Pantaenus  —  "said,  since  the 
Lord,  being  the  Apostle  of  the  Almighty,  was  sent  to  the 
Hebrews,  in  his  modesty  Paul,  as  sent  to  the  Gentiles,  does  not 
write  himself  down  as  apostle  of  the  Hebrews,  not  only  because 
of  the  honour  due  to  the  Lord,  but  also  because  of  its  being 
a  superfluous  thing  to  write  also  to  the  Hebrews,  seeing  that 
he  was  a  preacher  and  apostle  of  the  Gentiles." 

Photius  refers  to  the  Sketches,  and  says  (Cod.  109);  "Their 
whole  purpose  is,  as  it  were,  explanations  of  Genesis,  of  Exodus, 
of  the  Psalms,  of  the  Epistles,  of  the  divine  Paul,  and  of  the 
Catholic  [Epistles],  and  of  Ecclesiastes."  As  Clement  only 
commented  on  four  of  the  Catholic  Epistles,  leaving  out  James 
and  Third  John,  Photius  is  merely  speaking  generally  in  naming 
the  Catholic  Epistles  without  any  limitation.  In  the  sixth  century 
Cassiodorius  of  Calabria,  prime  minister  of  Theodoric's,  and 
others,  and  then  founder  of  a  monastery  in  Bruttia  (Calabria), 
wrote  a  general  theological  handbook  for  his  monks,  in  which 
he  says  (de  inst.  8) :  "  In  the  canonical " — that  is  for  us  the 
Catholic — "Epistles,  moreover,  Clement,  an  Alexandrian  pres- 
byter, who  is  also  called  the  Carpet-er,"  —  from  that  book  the 
high-coloured  Carpets, — "  explained  in  Attic  language  the  First 
Epistle  of  Saint  Peter,  the  First  and  Second  of  Saint  John,  and 
James," — but  James  is  a  mistake,  probably  of  some  copyist ;  it 
must  read  Jude.  Then  Cassiodorius  translated  some  of  these 
comments,  including  some  on  Jude,  none  on  James. 

It  is  perhaps  enough  when  we  say  that  Clement  commented 
on  these  four  Epistles,  but  we  may  add  the  following  quotations 
for  the  sake  of  being  sure.  It  is  not  strange  that  we  find  no 
quotation  from  the  short  Second  John.  That  Clement  fails 
to  mention  Third  John  may  be  because  he  did  not  know 
of  its  existence,  although  he  might  have  thought  it  scarcely 
worth  mentioning  because  of  its  shortness  and  of  its  similarity 
in  some  phrases  to  Second  John.  As  for  Jude,  however, 
Clement  refers  to  the  verses  8  to  16  thus  (Strom.  3.  2.  11): 
"About  these,  I  think,  and  the  like  heresies  Jude  spoke 
prophetically  in  his  Epistle;  'Nevertheless,  these  also  likewise 
dreaming — for  waking  they  attack  the  truth — as  far  as :  And 
their  mouth  utters  swelled-up  things.'"  Now  it  may  be  that 
Clement  wrote  that  just  so,  with  "  as  far  as  "  instead  of  giving  all 


222  THE  CANON 

the  verses.  But  it  is  possible  that  a  lazy  copyist  put  in  "  as  far 
as  "  and  left  the  verses  out.  In  either  case  it  is  a  large  quotation, 
and  fixes  Clement's  use  of  Jude,  which  he  quotes  several  times 
besides.  Clement  often  quotes  Hebrews.  It  is  enough  to 
mention  one  passage.  He  gives  us  Heb.  6^^-^^,  precisely  in  the 
same  way  as  those  verses  in  Jude  (2.  22.  136) :  "And  we  desire 
that  each  one  of  you  show  the  same  zeal  unto  the  fulness  of 
hope,  until :  Being  a  high  priest  to  eternity,  according  to  the 
order  of  Melchisedek."  Out  of  the  several  quotations  from 
Revelation  I  take  this  free  one  (5.  6.  35):  "And  they  say  that 
the  seven  eyes  of  the  Lord  are  seven  spirits  resting  upon  the 
staff  flowering  up  out  of  the  root  of  Jesse."  That  is  an  odd 
confusion  of  memory  for  Rev.  5^.  However,  we  have  gotten 
from  Clement  of  Alexandria  clear  testimony  to  Second  John, 
Jude,  Hebrews,  and  Revelation ;  but  nothing  for  James,  Second 
Peter,  or  Third  John. 

From  Alexandria  we  now  pass  towards  the  west,  and  we 
find  at  Carthage  the  lawyer  Tertullian.  He  is  not  a  petty 
advocate,  but  a  man  of  note  and  influence,  one  whose  business 
may  call  him  to  Rome.  He  is  a  lawyer,  but  a  Christian. 
He  is  not  half  a  Christian,  but  a  whole  one.  He  may  write 
sometimes  a  not  very  polished  Latin,  but  he  knows  how  to 
put  life  and  fire  into  the  words.  He  burns  and  it  burns  within 
us.  We  must  quote  a  section  from  his  work  against  Marcion 
in  which  he  shows  himself  a  believer  in  tradition.  And  when 
we  reflect  how  short  the  course  of  tradition  from  the  apostles  to 
him  was,  his  words  have  great  weight  for  us.  He  writes  (4.  5) : 
"  In  short,  if  it  be  agreed  that  that  is  truer  which  is  earlier, 
that  earlier,  which  is  even  from  the  beginning,  that  from  the 
beginning  which  is  from  the  apostles,  it  will  also  likewise  surely 
be  agreed  that  that  was  handed  down  from  the  apostles  which 
has  been  sacredly  preserved  among  the  churches  of  the  apostles. 
Let  us  see  what  milk  the  Corinthians  drank  from  Paul,  according 
to  what  rule  the  Galatians  were  reproved,  what  the  Philippians, 
the  Thessalonians,  the  Ephesians  read,  what  also  the  Romans 
from  our  neighbourhood  proclaim,  to  whom  both  Peter  and 
Paul  left  the  Gospel  and  that  sealed  by  their  blood.  We  have 
also  churches  cherished  by  John.  For  although  Marcion  rejects 
his  Revelation,  yet  the  series  of  bishops  traced  to  its  source 
will  rest  upon  John  as  their  founder.     Thus  also  the  high  birth 


THE  AGE  OF  ORIGEN— TERTULLIAN  223 

of  the  rest  is  recognised.  And  therefore  I  say  that  among  them, 
and  not  only  among  the  apostolic  churches  but  also  among 
all  the  churches  which  are  confederated  with  them  in  the 
fellowship  of  the  oath  (sacrament),  that  Gospel  of  Luke  which 
we  defend  with  all  our  might  stands  fast  from  the  moment  it 
was  published,  but  Marcion's  [Luke]  is  unknown  to  the  most, 
known,  moreover,  to  none  without  being  at  once  condemned." 

We  have  then  to  ask,  what  this  Tertullian  thinks  of  our  seven 
books.  Four  of  them  :  James,  Second  Peter,  Second  and  Third 
John,  he  does  not  appear  to  know  at  all.  It  might  merely  be 
questioned  as  to  the  two  last,  whether  he  simply  passed  them 
by  as  short  and  without  thinking  that  they  were  not  genuine. 
The  ease  with  which  they  might  have  been,  may  have  been 
overlooked  will  be  clear  from  the  case  of  Jude.  Jude  he 
mentions  by  name  as  apostoHc.  Now,  interestingly  enough, 
he  mentions  it  (de  cultu  fem.  i.  3)  at  the  close  of  a  discussion 
of  the  canonicity  of  the  book  of  Enoch.  He  suggests  that  the 
Jews  may  have  refused  Enoch  a  place  in  their  closet  because 
it  spoke  of  Christ,  and  agrees  that  it  is  no  wonder  that  they 
reject  a  book  that  spoke  of  Him,  seeing  that  they  did  not 
receive  Him  speaking  before  them.  He  concludes:  "To  this 
comes  the  fact  that  Enoch  possesses  testimony  in  the  Apostle 
Jude."  Just  nine  words  give  us  his  view  of  Jude.  The  sen- 
tence is  a  mere  trifle.  As  men  say :  he  happens  to  add  the 
thought.  And  were  it  not  for  this  trifle  we  should  know 
nothing  of  his  valuation  of  Jude.  How  easily,  then,  Second 
and  Third  John  may  have  escaped  his  pen.  How  abput  the 
two  other  books  ?  Tertullian  is  perfectly  well  acquainted  with 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  but  he  only  quotes  it  once. 
He  writes  (de  pud.  20) :  "  Nevertheless  I  wish  in  a  redundant 
way  to  adduce  also  the  testimony  of  a  certain  companion  of 
the  apostles,  fit  to  confirm  of  next  right  the  discipline  of  the 
masters.  For  there  exists  also  a  writing  of  Barnabas  to  the 
Hebrews,  a  man  sufficiently  authorised  by  God,  whom  Paul 
placed  beside  himself  in  the  matter  of  abstinence :  Or  have 
I  alone  and  Barnabas  no  right  to  work.  And  would  that  the 
letter  of  Barnabas  were  rather  received  among  the  churches  than 
that  apocryphal  Shepherd  of  the  adulterers.  And  so  admonishing 
the  disciples,  leaving  all  beginnings  behind  to  stretch  forward 
rather   to  perfection  nor  again    to    lay   the   foundations   of  re- 


224  THE  CANON 

pentance  from  the  works  of  the  dead.  For  it  is  impossible, 
he  says,  that  those  who  have  once  been  enlightened  and  have 
tasted  the  heavenly  gift,"  .  .  .  and  he  continues  the  quotation 
to  the  end  of  the  eighth  verse. 

For  myself  I  accept  TertuUian's  opinion  as  to  the  authorship 
of  Hebrews.  But  the  interesting  thing  is,  that  he  does  not  accept 
it  as  equal  to  the  mass  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament.  For 
him  it  is  not  New  Testament  at  all.  It  is  as  he  says,  like  a 
lawyer,  a  title,  it  is  an  enunciation,  a  letter,  a  book,  and  it  is 
quite  a  respectable  book,  but  it  is  not  scripture.  It  was  not 
written  by  a  Twelve- Apostle  and  not  by  Paul,  and  not  by  a  brother 
of  Jesus.  It  is  better  than  Hermas.  On  that  point  he  has  a 
definite  opinion.  But  it  is  not  apostolic.  I  accept  TertuUian's 
author,  but  I  put  the  book  fairly  into  the  New  Testament,  as  he 
did  not.  One  book  remains  :  Tertullian  is  thoroughly  convinced 
that  the  Revelation  was  written  by  the  Apostle  John,  and  he 
refers  to  it  constantly  as  an  authoritative  book.  He  writes  :  "  For 
also  the  Revelation  of  John,"  "  For  also  the  Apostle  John  in 
the  Revelation,"  "Also  in  the  Revelation  of  John,"  quoting 
verse  after  verse.  For  Tertullian  and  for  Carthage  we  have  thus 
testimony  touching  Jude  and  Revelation,  and  testimony  of  a 
second-class  intention  for  Hebrews. 

We  return  now  to  Alexandria  and  to  the  old  theological 
school,  and  to  Clement's  pupil  and  successor  the  giant  Origen. 
He  personifies  the  intercourse  between  distant  churches  and 
the  intense  eagerness  of  what  may  with  justice  be  called 
scientific  theological  research  in  the  Church  of  his  day.  Origen 
knew  not  merely  Alexandria,  but  as  well  Rome  and  Antioch 
and  Arabia  and  Athens  and  Caesarea.  His  testimony  has  for  us 
a  high  value.  He  was  an  exegete.  He  knew  the  books  of  the 
Bible.  Eusebius  tells  us  (H.  E.  6.  25)  that:  "Also  in  the  fifth 
book  of  the  commentaries  upon  the  [Gospel]  according  to  John, 
the  same  [Origen]  says  this  about  the  Epistles  of  the  Apostles : 
Now  he  who  was  enabled  to  become  a  servant  of  the  new 
covenant,  not  of  letter  but  of  spirit,  Paul,  who  caused  the  Gospel 
to  abound  from  Jerusalem  and  around  as  far  as  Illyria,  not  only 
did  not  write  to  all  the  churches  which  he  taught,  but  also  sent 
[but]  a  few  lines  to  those  to  which  he  wrote.  And  Peter,  upon 
whom  the  Church  of  Christ  is  built,  against  which  hell's  gates 
shall  not  prevail,  left  behind  him  one   Epistle  that  is  acknow- 


THE  AGE  OF  ORIGEN— ORIGEN  225 

ledged,  possibly  a  second,  for  it  is  called  in  question.  What  need 
to  speak  of  the  one  reclining  on  Jesus'  breast,  John,  who  left 
behind  him  one  Gospel,  confessing  that  he  could  make  so  many 
that  not  even  the  world  could  contain  them?  And  he  wrote 
also  the  Revelation,  having  been  commanded  to  be  silent  and 
not  to  write  the  voices  of  the  seven  thunders.  And  he  left 
behind  also  an  Epistle  of  altogether  few  lines.  It  may  be  also 
a  second  and  a  third.  Since  all  do  not  say  that  these  are 
genuine.     But  both  are  not  of  a  hundred  lines." 

In  his  homilies  on  Joshua  (7.  i),  which  unfortunately  are  only 
preserved  in  a  translation,  Origen  takes  fire  at  the  sound  of  the 
priestly  trumpets  moving  around  the  walls  of  Jericho  at  the  com- 
mand of  that  earlier  Jesus  :  "  But  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  coming, 
whose  advent  that  former  son  of  Nun  pointed  out,  sends  as  priests 
His  apostles  bearing  well-drawn  trumpets,  the  magnificent  and 
heavenly  doctrine  of  preaching.  First  Matthew  sounded  with 
priestly  trumpet  in  his  Gospel.  Mark  also,  and  Luke,  and  John 
sang  each  with  their  priestly  trumpets.  Peter  also  sounds  with 
the  two" — one  reading  says:  from  the  three — trumpets  of 
his  Epistles.  James  also  and  Jude.  None  the  less  does  John 
also  here  still  further  sing  with  the  trumpets  by  his  Epistles 
and  the  Revelation,  and  Luke  describing  the  deeds  of  the 
apostles.  Latest  of  all,  moreover,  that  one  coming  who  said : 
I  think,  moreover,  that  God  makes  a  show  of  us  newest  apostles, 
and  thundering  with  the  fourteen  trumpets  of  his  Epistles  he 
threw  down  to  the  very  foundations  the  walls  of  Jericho  and 
all  the  contrivances  of  idolatry,  and  the  dogmas  of  the 
philosophers."  We  may  remain  in  doubt  at  this,  whether  he 
himself  wrote  "  fourteen "  Epistles  for  Paul,  calling  Hebrews 
his,  or  whether  the  translator  changed  thirteen  to  fourteen. 
In  his  homilies  (13.  2)  on  Genesis  he  calls  the  apostles  the  sons, 
the  servants,  the  boys  of  Isaac :  "  Therefore  Isaac  also  digs 
new  wells,  rather  the  sons  of  Isaac  dig.  The  sons  of  Isaac  are 
Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  and  John.  His  sons  are  Peter,  James, 
and  Jude.  His  son  is  also  the  Apostle  Paul.  Who  all  dig 
the  wells  of  the  New  Testament.  But  for  these" — for  the 
possession  of  these  new  wells  — "  contend  those  who  like 
earthly  things,  nor  suffer  new  things  to  be  instituted  nor  old 
ones  to  be  cleaned.  They  oppose  the  Gospel  wells.  They 
war  against  the  apostolical  wells." 
IS 


226  THE  CANON 

Hebrews  he  discusses  at  length.  He  quotes  it  more  than 
two  hundred  times,  sometimes  saying :  The  Apostle,  or  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  or  Paul,  or  Paul  in  the  Epistle  te 
the  Hebrews.  He  wrote  homilies  on  it  after  the  year  245, 
and  in  these  homilies  he  gives  us  the  following  judicious  ac- 
count of  the  Epistle,  which  Eusebius  (H.  E.  6.  25)  has  saved 
for  us  :  "  About  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  he  presents  these 
words  in  his  homilies  on  it :  Everyone  who  understands  how 
to  distinguish  the  difference  of  phrases  would  agree  that  the 
character  of  the  style  of  the  Epistle  entitled  as  that  to  the 
Hebrews  has  not  in  its  wording  the  peculiarities  of  the  apostle, 
who  confessed  that  he  was  an  unlearned  man  in  speech,  that 
is  in  the  phrasing,  but  that  the  Epistle  is  more  thoroughly  Greek 
in  the  composition  of  the  wording.  And  again,  moreover,  that 
the  thoughts  of  the  Epistle  are  wonderful  and  are  not  inferior 
to  those  of  the  writings  that  are  acknowledged  to  be  apostohcal, 
and  this  every  one  giving  heed  to  the  reading  which  is  apostolical 
would  say  with  me  to  be  true.  After  other  things  he  adds 
to  this,  saying :  Speaking  freely,  I  should  say  that  the  thoughts 
were  of  the  apostle,  but  the  wording  and  the  composition 
were  of  some  one  drawing  the  apostolical  things  from  his 
memory,  and  as  it  were  of  one  who  wrote  notes  upon  what 
had  been  spoken  by  the  teacher.  If  then  any  church  holds 
this  Epistle  as  Paul's,  let  it  be  content  with  this  thought.  For 
the  men  of  old  did  not  in  vain  hand  it  down  as  Paul's.  But 
who  wrote  the  Epistle,  the  truth  God  knows.  The  account  has 
come  to  us  of  some  who  say  that  Clement  who  became  Bishop  of 
Rome  wrote  the  Epistle,  and  of  others  [who  say]  that  Luke,  the 
one  who  wrote  the  Gospel  and  the  Acts,  [wrote  it]." 

In  his  commentary  on  the  Psalms  (Ps.  30)  we  read  a  reference 
to  James  as  a  proof  that  the  word  spirit  is  applied  by  Scripture 
sometimes  to  the  soul,  the  psyche :  "  As  in  James  :  And  as  the 
body  without  the  spirit  is  dead,"  James  2^^.  In  another  place,  in 
his  commentary  on  John  (vol.  20.  10),  he  speaks  as  though  some 
would  not  take  what  James  said  for  authoritative  :  *'  This  would 
not  be  conceded  by  those  who  receive  the  saying.  Faith  without 
works  is  dead,"  James  2^0.  But  the  weight  of  the  words  "  who 
receive"  as  a  questioning  of  the  authority  of  the  Epistle  is 
diminished  by  the  fact  that  Origen  immediately  continues  :  "  Or 
of  those  hearing,"  and  quotes  Romans      It  is  further  interesting 


THE  AGE  OF  OKIGEN— ORIGEN   AND   DIONYSIUS      22/ 

to  see  that  he  does  not  use  the  reading  "  vain  "  or  "  ineffective," 
but  draws  the  word  "dead"  from  v.^''.  In  the  same  com- 
mentary on  John,  a  Httle  earHer  (vol.  19.  23  [6]),  he  calls  it  a 
letter' that  is  in  circulation,  as  if  it  were  not  a  genuine  letter: 
"  And  if  faith  is  alleged,  but  chance  to  be  without  works,  such  is 
dead,  as  we  have  read  in  the  current  Epistle  of  James."  It  is 
further  to  be  observed  that  in  his  commentary  on  Matthew, 
when  he  speaks  at  length  of  the  brothers  of  Jesus,  he  mentions 
James,  but  says  nothing  of  his  Epistle. 

As  for  Jude,  we  may  begin  precisely  at  that  point.  In  that 
commentary  on  Matthew  (vol.  10.  17)  he  says:  "And  Jude 
wrote  a  letter  but  of  few  lines,  yet  filled  with  hearty  (or  strong) 
words  of  heavenly  grace,  who  spoke  in  the  preface :  Jude  a 
servant  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  brother  of  James."  At  a  later 
point  (vol.  17.  30)  the  phrase  used  for  Jude  is  less  definite: 
And  if  anyone  should  also  bring  in  the  letter  of  Jude,  let 
him  see  what  follows  the  word  because  of  the  saying:  And 
the  angels,  those  not  keeping  their  first  estate  but  leaving 
their  own  dwelling,  he  has  kept  in  lasting  bonds  under  darkness 
unto  the  judgment  of  the  great  day."  We  have  already  given 
above  his  unqualified  allusion  both  to  James  and  Jude  in  his 
general  statements,  and  as  well  a  qualified  and  an  unqualified 
one  to  Second  Peter ;  the  lack  of  qualification  may  in  the  latter 
case  be  due  to  the  translator.  In  the  case  of  the  Epistles  of 
John  the  mere  plural  would  not  distinguish  between  two  or 
three  Epistles,  but  we  may  keep  to  three  because  he  mentions 
them  in  the  first  general  statement.  The  book  of  Revelation 
we  have  found  in  the  general  summings-up,  and  we  may  add 
a  single  quotation  from  among  many  (on  John,  vol.  i.  14) : 
"Therefore  John  the  son  of  Zebedee  says  in  the  Revelation: 
And  I  saw  an  angel  flying  in  mid-heaven,"  Rev.  14^,  and  he 
quotes  to  the  end  of  v.''.  We  have,  then,  from  Origen 
firm  testimony  for  Jude,  Hebrews,  and  the  Revelation,  and 
wavering  testimony  for  James,  Second  Peter,  and  Second  and 
Third  John. 

His  pupil,  Origen's  pupil,  Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  took 
charge  of  the  school  there  probably  about  the  year  231,  became 
Bishop  of  Alexandria  about  the  year  247,  and  died  about  265. 
He  was  twice  banished.  He  was  a  live  man,  just  such  a  one  as 
the  best  pupil  of  Origen  could  be  expected  to  make,  and  he  was 


228  THE  CANON 

i 

in  constant  intercourse  with  Rome,  of  course  with  Csesarea,  and 
with  Asia  Minor.  He  wrote  a  vigorous  but  short  letter  to 
Novatus  to  leave  the  church  at  Rome  in  peace  and  save  his  soul. 
Indeed,  he  reminds  us  with  his  letters  of  his  less  gifted  namesake 
Dionysius  of  Corinth  nearly  a  century  earlier.  He  wrote  not 
merely  to  the  Egyptians,  and,  when  banished,  to  his  Alexandrian 
sheep,  but  also  to  Origen  and  to  Laodicea,  where  Thelymidres  was 
bishop,  and  to  Armenia,  where  Meroudsanes  was  bishop,  and  to 
Cornelius,  Bishop  of  Rome.  He  was  called  upon  by  Elenus,  the 
Bishop  of  Tarsus  in  Cilicia,  and  the  rest  of  those  with  him,  by 
Firmilian  in  Cappadocia,  and  Theoctistus  in  Palestine  to  stand 
up  against  the  followers  of  Novatus  at  the  synod  of  Antioch. 
But  that  is  enough  to  show  his  influence. 

The  following  paragraph  from  a  letter  of  Dionysius'  shows 
his  view  of  the  harmonious  state  of  the  Church  in  general,  the 
persecutions  having  ceased  and  the  Churches  having  given  up 
their  love  for  Novatus  (Eus.  H.  E.  7.  5):  "And  now,  brother, 
know  that  all  the  Churches  throughout  the  East  and  still  beyond, 
that  were  torn  apart,  are  united.  And  all  the  leaders  everywhere 
are  of  one  mind,  rejoicing  exceedingly  at  the  peace  which  has 
come  against  expectation, — Demetrianos  in  Antioch,  Theoctistus 
in  Caesarea,  Madzabanes  in  Aelia,  Marinus  in  Tyre,  Alexander 
having  fallen  asleep,  Heliodorus  in  Laodicea.  Thelymidres 
having  gone  to  his  rest,  Elenus  in  Tarsus  and  all  the  churches 
of  Cilicia,  Firmilianus  and  all  Cappadocia.  For  I  have  named 
only  the  more  illustrious  of  the  bishops,  lest  I  should  add  length 
to  the  letter  or  undue  heaviness  to  the  discourse.  Neverthe- 
less all  the  Syrias  and  Arabia,  to  each  of  which  ye  give  aid  and 
to  which  ye  now  wrote,  and  Mesopotamia,  both  Pontus  and 
Bithynia,  and  to  speak  briefly  all  everywhere  rejoice  in  oneness 
of  mind  and  in  brotherly  love,  glorifying  God." 

Dionysius  quotes  the  Epistle  of  James  (Galland,  vol.  14. 
App.  p.  117  E):  "For  God,  he  says,  is  not  tempted  by  evils." 
He  also  refers  (Eus.  H.  E.  6.  41)  to  Hebrews  as  written  by 
Paul :  "  And  the  brethren  turned  aside  and  gave  place  (to  their 
persecutors),  and  they  received  with  joy,  like  those  to  whom  also 
Paul  bore  witness,  the  plundering  of  their  goods,"  Hebrews  lo^*. 
And  in  his  discussion  of  the  book  of  Revelation  he  shows  plainly 
that  he  regards  the  Second  and  Third  Epistles  of  John  as  his,  and 
we  see  that  he  claims  their  anonymity  as  a  sign  of  John's  inch- 


THE  AGE  OF  ORIGEN— DIONYSIUS  OF   ALEXANDRIA    229 

nation  to  write  anonymously :  "  And  not  even  in  the  Second  ana 
Third  Epistles  of  John  which  are  in  our  hands,  although  they  are 
short,  does  John  appear  by  name,  but  the  presbyter  writes 
anonymously."  In  ,the  same  connection,  however,  thirty  lines 
later,  he  speaks  of  "the  Epistle"  more  than  once,  and  the 
Catholic  Epistle,  meaning  the  First  Epistle,  as  if  John  had  only 
written  one.  But  we  find  a  like  numberless  reference  to  the 
Second  Epistle  by  Aurelius  of  Chullabi  in  the  seventh  council 
of  Carthage,  which  was  held  in  the  year  256  during  the  lifetime 
of  Dionysius  (Routh,  3.  p.  130):  "John  the  apostle  commanded 
(laid  it  down)  in  his  Epistle  saying :  If  anyone  come  to  you  and 
have  not  the  teaching  of  Christ,  refuse  to  admit  him  into  your 
house,  and  do  not  greet  him.  For  whoever  shall  have  greeted 
(welcomed)  him  takes  part  in  his  evil  deeds,"  2  John  i^- 1^. 
The  quotation  is  loose  enough.  We  then  have  Dionysius' 
testimony  for  James,  for  Second  and  Third  John,  and  for 
Hebrews,  but  nothing  for  Second  Peter  or  Jude.  As  for  the 
book  of  Revelation,  we  must  give  his  words  at  length. 

Dionysius  of  Alexandria's  discussion  of  the  authorship  of  the 
Revelation  is  the  first  scientific  discussion  of  the  kind  m  the 
early  Church  that  has  been  preserved  until  our  day.  It  offers  in 
its  way  for  the  criticism  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  a 
parallel  to  Origen's  criticism  of  the  text  of  certain  passages. 
Eusebius  (H.  E.  7.  25)  gives  us  first  Dionysius'  account  of  the 
way  in  which  some  Christians  had  previously  treated  Revelation : 
"  For  some  then  of  those  before  us  rejected  and  cast  aside  the 
book  in  every  way,  and  correcting  it  chapter  for  chapter,  and, 
showing  that  it  was  ignorant  and  unreasonable,  declared  that  the 
title  was  forged.  For  they  say  that  it  is  not  from  John,  and  that 
it  is  not  even  a  revelation,  being  covered  with  the  heavy  and 
thick  veil  of  ignorance,  and  that  not  only  no  one  of  the  apostles, 
but  not  even  any  one  of  the  saints  or  of  those  belonging  to  the 
Church,  was  the  maker  of  this  book,  but  Cerinthus,  backing  up 
the  heresy  called  after  him  the  Cerinthian,  and  wishing  to  set  .a 
name  worthy  of  credence  at  the  head  of  his  own  fabrication.  For 
this  is  the  dogma  of  his  teaching,  that  Christ's  kingdom  will  be 
earthly,  and  in  this  he  dreams  that  it  will  consist  in  those  things 
which  he  himself  longed  for,  being  a  lover  of  the  body  and 
altogether  fleshly,  in  satisfyings  of  the  belly  and  of  the  things 
below  the  belly,  that  is  in  feastings  and  drmkings  and  marriages, 


230  THE  CANON 

and  in  the  things  by  means  of  which  he  thought  that  he  would 
succeed  in  getting  these  things  under  more  acceptable  names,  in 
feasts  and  offerings  and  sacrifices  of  sacred  animals.  But  I 
should  not  dare  to  reject  the  book,  since  many  of  the  brethren 
hold  it  with  zeal,  and  I  accept  as  greater  than  my  consideration 
of  the  book  the  general  opinion  about  it,  and  regard  the  explana- 
tion of  the  details  in  it  for  something  hidden  and  most  wonder- 
ful. For  even  if  I  do  not  understand,  yet  I  presuppose  that  a 
certain  deeper  sense  lies  in  the  words.  Not  measuring  and 
judging  these  thmgs  with  a  reasoning  of  my  own,  but  attributing 
them  rather  to  faith,  I  have  thought  that  they  were  too  high  to 
be  apprehended  by  me,  and  I  do  not  reject  these  things  which  I 
have  not  seen  with  the  rest,  but  am  rather  surprised  that  I  have 
not  also  seen  them."     Thus  Dionysius. 

Eusebius  continues :  "  Thereat  putting  to  the  test  the  whole 
book  of  Revelation,  and  having  shown  that  it  is  impossible  to 
understand  it  according  to  the  common  conception,  he  adds, 
saying :  "  And  having  finished  the  whole  prophecy,  so  to  speak, 
the  prophet  blessed  those  who  keep  it,  and  so  also  himself.  For 
blessed,  he  says,  is  he  that  keepeth  the  words  of  the  prophecy 
of  this  book,  and  I  John  the  one  seeing  and  hearing  these  things. 
I  have  then  nothing  to  oppose  to  his  being  called  John,  and 
to  this  book's  being  by  John.  For  I  agree  that  it  is  by  some 
one  holy  and  inspired,  yet  I  should  not  easily  suppose  that  this 
was  the  apostle,  the  son  of  Zebedee,  the  brother  of  James,  of 
whom  the  Gospel  according  to  John  and  the  Catholic  Epistle 
bear  the  name.  For  I  judge  from  the  bearing  of  each,  and 
the  shape  of  the  discourse,  and  the  outcome  of  the  book,  that 
it  is  not  the  same.  For  the  Evangelist  nowhere  writes  his  name, 
by  the  bye,  nor  heralds  himself,  either  by  means  of  the  Gospel 
or  by  means  of  the  Epistle.  Then  a  little  farther  on  he  says 
this  again  :  And  John  nowhere  neither  as  about  himself  nor 
as  about  another[?].  But  the  one  writing  the  Revelation  at 
once  in  the  beginning  sets  himself  at  the  head:  Revelation  of 
Jesus  Christ  which  He  gave  to  him  to  show  to  His  servants 
speedily,  and  He  signified  it  sending  by  His  angel  to  His  servant 
John,  who  bore  witness  to  the  Word  of  God  and  to  His  testimony, 
to  as  many  things  as  he  saw.  Then  also  he  writes  a  letter: 
John  to  the  seven  churches  which  are  in  Asia,  grace  to  you  and 
peace.     But  the  Evangelist  did  not  even  write  his  name  before 


THE  AGE  OF  ORIGEN— DIONYSIUS   OF  ALEXANDRIA    23 1 

the  Catholic  Epistle,  but  without  needless  words  began  with  the 
very  mystery  of  the  divine  revelation :  That  which  was  from  the 
beginning,  which  we  heard,  which  we  saw  with  our  eyes.  For 
on  occasion  of  this  very  revelation  also  the  Lord  called  Peter 
blessed,  saying :  Blessed  art  thou  Simon  bar  Jonah  because  flesh 
and  blood  did  not  reveal  it  to  thee,  but  my  Heavenly  Father. 
But  not  in  the  Second  that  is  circulated  of  John,  or  in  the  Third, 
although  they  are  short  Epistles,  does  John  appear  by  name,  but 
the  presbyter  writes  namelessly.  But  this  one  did  not  even 
think  it  enough,  having  named  himself  once,  to  relate  what 
follows,  but  he  takes  it  up  again  :  I,  John,  your  brother  and  sharer 
with  you  in  the  suffering  and  kingdom  and  in  patient  waiting  for 
Jesus,  was  on  the  island  called  Patmos  because  of  the  Word  of 
God  and  the  testimony  of  Jesus.  And  then  also  at  the  end  he 
says  this :  Blessed  is  he  that  keepeth  the  words  of  the  prophecy 
of  this  book,  and  I,  John,  who  see  and  hear  these  things.  That 
therefore  John  is  the  one  who  writes  this  is  to  be  believed  him- 
self saying  it.  Which  one,  however,  this  is,  is  not  clear.  For  he 
did  not,  as  often  in  the  Gospel,  say  that  he  himself  was  the 
disciple  loved  by  the  Lord,  or  the  brother  of  James,  or  the  one 
who  had  been  a  self-seer  and  a  self-hearer  of  the  Lord.  For  he 
would  have  said  something  of  these  things  that  were  made  clear 
beforehand  if  he  wished  to  display  himself  clearly." 

Dionysius  then  speaks  of  the  many  Johns  :  "  As  also  Paul  was 
much  named,  and  Peter  among  the  children  of  the  believers,"  that 
is,  that  many  boys  were  called  Paul  and  Peter.  He  mentions  John 
Mark,  but  thinks  him  unlikely  to  be  the  author.  Then  he  refers 
to  the  other  John  in  Ephesus,  who  appears  to  be  more  likely  to 
have  written  it.  He  gives  at  length  a  view  of  the  way  in  which 
the  author  of  the  Gospel  and  the  First  Epistle  writes,  and  turning 
to  the  Revelation  says  :  "  But  totally  different  and  foreign  to  all 
this  is  the  Revelation,  neither  joining  on  to  nor  approaching  this 
in  any  way,  almost  so  to  speak  not  even  having  a  syllable  in 
common  with  it.  And  neither  has  the  Epistle  any  reminder  or 
any  thought  of  the  Revelation  (for  I  let  the  Gospel  pass),  nor 
the  Revelation  of  the  Epistle,  whereas  Paul  refers  in  passing  by 
his  Epistles  also  to  his  revelations  which  he  did  not  write  out  by 
themselves.  And  further  also  the  difference  of  the  language 
between  the  Gospel  and  the  Epistle  over  against  the  Revelation 
is   to   be   emphasized.     For   the   former  are   written   not   only 


232  THE  CANON 

faultlessly  as  regards  the  Greek  speech,  but  also  most  logically 
in  the  phrases,  the  arguments,  the  composition  of  the  explanations. 
It  goes  very  hard  to  find  in  them  a  barbarous  sound,  a  solecism, 
or  any  personal  peculiarity.  For  he  had,  as  it  appears,  each  of 
the  two  words,  the  Lord  having  granted  them  to  him,  the  word 
of  knowledge  and  the  word  of  diction.  But  that  this  one  saw 
a  revelation  and  received  knowledge  and  prophecy,  I  do  not 
deny ;  nevertheless  I  see  his  dialect  and  his  tongue  not  Grecising 
accurately,  but  using  barbaric  idioms  and  occasionally  also 
committing  solecisms." 

Dionysius  was  a  great  and  a  learned  and  an  influential  man. 
He  was  not  like  Origen,  for  years  before  his  death  the  object  of 
ecclesiastical  hatred  in  Alexandria.  Yet  nevertheless  his  dis- 
cussion of  the  Revelation  in  this  way  seems  to  have  had  but 
little  effect  upon  his  surroundings  or  his  successors,  although  it 
certainly  may  have  had  a  share  in  the  shaping  of  the  general 
fate  of  the  book  of  Revelation  of  which  we  have  still  to  treat. 
Dionysius  stands  for  James,  Second  and  Third  John,  Hebrews, 
and  for  the  Revelation  as  from  an  unknown  John,  but  not  for 
Second  Peter  or  Jude,  so  far  as  we  can  see. 

Now  we  turn  again  to  the  West,  again  to  Carthage.  This 
time  we  have  to  do  not  with  a  lawyer  but  with  a  bishop.  Cyprian 
was  born  at  Carthage  in  the  year  200,  and  taught  rhetoric  there. 
He  was  baptized  in  246,  became  presbyter  and  in  248  bishop  of 
Carthage.  In  the  Decian  persecution  he  fled  for  safety  to  the 
desert,  and  under  Valerian  he  was  banished,  but  then  beheaded 
in  258  in  his  native  city.  Cyprian  gives  no  signs  of  having 
known  anything  about  James,  Second  Peter,  Second  and  Third 
John,  Jude,  or  Hebrews.  He  is  a  great  quoter  of  Scripture,  and 
gives  something  from  all  the  other  books  of  the  New  Testament, 
saving  Philemon  and  those  just  named.  Of  course,  there  is  the 
bare  possibility  that  he  passed  over  one  or  the  other  short  Epistle 
merely  by  accident,  as  doubtless  was  the  case  with  Philemon, 
because  it  was  short  and  offered  little  occasion  for  reference. 
Singularly  enough,  we  have  a  reference  apparently  to  Second 
Peter  in  a  letter  of  Firmilian's,  the  bishop  of  Caesarea  in 
Cappadocia,  which  we  find  in  Latin  among  the  letters  of  Cyprian 
(Ep.  75),  to  whom  it  was  addressed.  It  will  be  remembered  that 
Dionysius  mentioned  Firmilian.  Firmilian  appears  to  have  the 
second   chapter  of  Second  Peter  in   mind  when   he  writes   to 


THE  AGE  OF  ORIGEN— CYPRIAN  233 

Cyprian  that  Peter  and  Paul,  the  blessed  apostles,  "have  in 
their  Epistles  execrated  the  heretics  and  admonished  us  to 
avoid  them."  Cyprian,  however,  knows  well  the  Revelation,  and 
uses  it  freely. 

The  heresy  of  Paul  of  Samosata,  who  was  bishop  of  Antioch 
from  260  to  272,  although  excommunicated  in  269,  secures  us 
a  reference  to  Hebrews  and  perhaps  one  to  Jude.  The  Synod 
at  Antioch  in  the  year  269  wrote  a  letter  to  Paul,  and  quoted 
Hebrews  under  the  introduction  (Routh,  3.  pp.  298,  299) : 
"  According  to  the  apostle,"  which  means  according  to  Paul,  and 
as  the  accompaniment  to  two  quotations  from  First  Corinthians  : 
"  And  of  Moses :  Reckoning  the  shame  of  Christ  greater  riches 
than  the  treasures  of  Egypt,"  Heb.  ii^^  The  allusion  to  Jude 
is  less  clear.  It  is  in  the  letter  which  Malchion,  a  presbyter  at 
Antioch  and  the  head  of  a  Greek  school  there,  wrote  in  the 
name  of  the  bishops  and  presbyters  and  deacons  of  Antioch 
and  of  the  neighbouring  cities  and  the  Churches  of  God,  to 
Dionysius,  bishop  of  Rome,  and  Maximus,  bishop  of  Alexandria. 
Malchion  (Routh,  3.  p.  304)  describes  the  Bishop  Paul  as  one : 
"Denying  his  own  God,  and  not  keeping  the  faith  which  he 
also  himself  formerly  had."  That  may  be  connected  with 
Jude  *  and  *. 

So  we  see  that  the  great  theological  writers  of  this  third 
century  give  us  divided  testimony  as  to  the  seven  books  to  which 
we  have  especially  directed  our  attention.  James  is  supported  by 
Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  and  in  an  uncertain  way  by  Origen. 
Second  Peter  only  has  an  uncertain  testimony  from  Origen. 
Second  John  is  supported  by  Clement  of  Alexandria  and  by 
Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  but  receives  from  Origen  only  an 
uncertain  note.  Third  John  rests  here  on  Dionysius  and  on 
uncertain  testimony  from  Origen.  Jude  is  supported  by  Clement 
of  Alexandria  and  by  Tertullian  and  by  Origen,  the  first  of  our 
seven  books  to  find  faith  in  the  West.  Hebrews  can  only  appeal 
to  the  three  Alexandrians :  Clement,  Origen,  and  Dionysius. 
Tertullian  sets  it  aside  as  not  a  part  of  the  New  Testament, 
although  he  thinks  it  a  very  fair  book.  Revelation  again,  like 
the  Epistle  of  Jude,  finds  support  both  East  and  West,  for  it  is 
accepted  by  Clement  and  Origen  at  Alexandria  and  by 
Tertullian  and  Cyprian  at  Carthage,  while  Dionysius  of  Alex- 
andria accepts  it,  it  is  true,  but  insists  upon  it  that  the  current 


234  THE  CANON 

belief  of  its  having  been  written  by  the  Apostle  John  is 
altogether  baseless.  , 

Our  task  for  this  period  consisted  of  three  parts.  One  is 
completed  by  the  simple  observation  that  we  have  nowhere 
found  any  signs  of  a  canonization  of  the  books  of  the  New 
Testament,  and  with  a  single  somewhat  indistinct  exception  of 
a  movement  on  the  part  of  any  synod  \to  say  just  what  books 
were  genuine  or  what  books  were  to  be  read,  or  what  books  were 
not  to  be  read.  The  second  task  is  completed  by  the  review  of 
the  seven  books  just  given.  The  third  remains,  the  question  as 
to  the  books  which  are  not  in  our  New  Testament  and  which 
yet  appear  at  or  up  to  his  time,  during  this  period  or  during  an 
earlier  period,  to  have  held  a  place  near  to  the  books  of  the 
New  Testament. 

This  question  may  be  divided  into  two,  in'  so  far  as  we  may 
ask  on  the  one  hand  what  books  were  in  good  and  churchly 
» circles  associated  with  the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  and, 
on  the  other  hand,  what  books  anyone  may  have  tried  to  forge 
in  the  name  of  the  apostles.  We  must  in  advance^  make  our 
minds  up  to  one  thing,  namely,  to  the  difficulty  in  nlany  or  in 
almost  all  cases  of  being  perfectly  sure  in  just  what  sense  the 
churches,  and  with  the  churches  the  authors  whom  we  have 
to  consult,  regarded  the  books  in  question.  Further,  it  muijt  be 
observed  that  in  cases  of  doubt  we  have  not  the  office  to  insist 
upon  it  that  the  given  books  must  of  necessity  have  been  held 
by  the  churches  to  be  equal  to  the  books  of  the  New  Testament. 
Be  there  doubt,  we  have  a  right  to  suppose  that  what  was  the 
case  elsewhere  or  before  or  after  may  be  used  to  decide  the  case 
in  favour  of  a  distinction  between  the  doubtful  books  and  those 
that  were  certainly  acknowledged. 

Still  further  is  to  be  observed,  that  the  happy-go-luckiness  with 
which,  the  reckless  way  in  which  we  have  seen  that  the  writers  of 
the  early  literature,  which  we  have  had  to  examine,  quote  not 
only  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  but  also  those  of  the  Old 
Testament,  permits  us  to  argue  that  they  certainly  will  not  in  every 
single  case  have  paused  to  reflect  whether  or  not  in  their  rapid 
flight  they  should  write  or  should  not  write  :  "  As  it  is  written," 
"As  it  is  spoken,"  "  The  Scripture  saith,"  or  not.  Should  anyone 
urge  that  that  will  be  true  of  cases  touching  the  New  Testament 
books,  and  that  they  may  have  been  by  these  errors  of  flightiness 


THE  AGE  OF  ORIGEN— OUTSIDE  BOOKS  235 

and  carelessness  denoted  as  Scripture  by  writers  who  upon  a  jber 
reflection  would  not  have  thus  designated  them,  we  must  con- 
cede it.  But  the  error  in  the  other  cases  is  the  error  that  is  to 
be  looked  for,  and  we  have  a  right,  it  is  our  duty  in  this  examina- 
tion, to  be  especially  upon  our  guard  against  it.  At  the  same 
time  we  may  declare  in  advance,  from  human  necessity  or  from 
the  consideration  of  the  inevitable  consequences  of  human 
frailty,  that  certainly  one  book  or  another  will  really  have  been 
quoted  or  used  as  canonical,  although  it  is  not  in  our  New 
Testament,  simply  because  the  boundaries  were  not  settled, 
because  there  was  no  definite  boundary  line  between  canonical 
and  non-canonical  books. 

Inasmuch  as  the  question  as  to  the  valuation  of  a  given  book 
is  largely  combined  with  the  question  as  to  its  being  read  in  the 
assemblies  of  the  Christians  for  public  worship,  it  is  necessary 
that  we  revert  for  a  moment  to  what  was  said  above  on  this 
point.  What  was  read  in  the  public  meeting  was  read  either 
under  the  head  of:  God  to  Man,  or  under  the  head  of:  Man  to 
Man.  It  must  not  be  overlooked  that  this  is  by  no  means  a 
Christian  innovation.  For  the  Jews  read  before  the  time  of 
Christ,  so  far  as  we  can  conjecture,  various  writings  in  the 
synagogue  which  were  not  as  yet  determined  to  be  authoritative. 
Without  doubt  in  some  cases  such  public  reading  led  the  way  to 
the  authorizati(Jn  of  the  said  books.  Under  God  to  Man  at  the 
close  of  the  third  century  only  the  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment and  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  which  were  current 
in  the  given  church  could  be  read.  At  the  middle  of  the  century 
Cyprian  had  already  placed  the  words  of  Jesus  above  those  of  the 
prophets,  like  the  keynote  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  And 
these  words  of  Jesus  were  the  words  written  in  the  Gospels 
(Cypr.  de  dom.  orat.  i) :  *'  Many  are  the  things  which  God  wished 
to  be  said  and  to  be  heard  through  the  prophets  His  servants, 
but  how  much  greater  are  those  which  the  Son  speaks." 

Whether  the  view  of  all  the  churches  as  to  what  was  New 
Testament  coincided  with  our  view  or  not,  is  what  we  have 
here  to  examine.  But  no  book  could  be  read  as  from  God 
to  Man  which  had  not  then  and  there  attained  to  this  right 
of  being  considered  a  part  of  the  New  Testament.  Under 
Man  to  Man  might  be  brought  first  of  all  a  sermon  attach- 
ing to  the  passage  or  one  of  the  passages  read,  or  it   may  be 


236  THE  CANON 

to  a  special  text.  Of  course,  this  sermon  was  originally,  as  we 
saw  above,  not  attached  to  a  text,  but  was  a  presentation  of 
something  verbal  that  corresponded  to  a  written  Gospel.  This 
verbal  Gospel  had  been  succeeded  by  the  written  Gospel,  which 
in  the  third  century  had  already  passed  on  to  the  division  God 
to  Man.  The  letters  of  the  apostles  were  at  first  read  here,  but 
had  now  also  passed  on  to  that  higher  division.  Finally,  there 
might  be  read  here  a  letter  from  a  bishop,  which  makes  us  think 
of  the  letters  of  Dionysius  of  Corinth  and  of  Dionysius  of 
Alexandria,  or  a  letter  from  another  church.  Nor  was  that  all. 
It  will  not  seldom  have  been  the  case  that  a  preacher  could  not 
be  had.  Nowadays  in  Saxony  in  such  a  case  the  school  teacher 
may  be  appointed  to  read  a  sermon  written  by  the  clergyman,  or 
a  printed  sermon.  In  those  early  ages  it  was  often  desirable 
to  have  something  to  read  in  the  place  of  the  lacking  sermon. 
Here  then  any  good  book,  any  book  fitted  to  build  up  the 
listening  assembly  in  Christian  life,  could  be  read.  What 
should  be  read  was  at  the  first  moment  not  determined  by  a 
synod  of  bishops.  The  single  churches  will  have  acted  as  the 
leading  men  in  them  decided.  And  it  is  to  the  books  that  we 
discover  thus  to  have  been  read  that  we  have  now  to  give 
especial  attention,  and  to  try  to  decide  whether  they  reached 
this  distinction  of  public  reading  by  right  of  the  assumption  that 
they  were  an  utterance  of  God  to  Man,  or  whether  they  were 
merely  regarded  as  good  books  which  spoke  for  Man  to  Man  as 
a  sermon  would  speak. 

The  first  book  that  we  have  to  consider  is  the  letter  of 
Clement  of  Rome  to  which  we  have  already  so  often  alluded. 
It  is  a  book  about  whose  origin  at  Rome,  and  by  the  hand  of 
Clement  a  prominent  Christian  there,  and  probably  about  the 
year  95,  there  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt.  We  read  above 
that  Hegesippus  stayed  some  time  at  Corinth  on  his  way  to 
Rome.  Eusebius  gives  us,  then,  Hegesippus'  testimony  for  this 
letter  by  adducing  his  statement  that,  as  the  letter  presupposes, 
there  really  had  then  been  an  uproar,  an  unusual  dissension,  a 
revolution  in  the  church  at  Corinth.  Much  more  clear  is  the 
account,  given  above,  from  Dionysius,  the  bishop  of  Corinth, 
who  mentions  this  letter  in  writing  to  the  church  of  Rome  or  to 
Soter,  the  bishop  of  Rome,  perhaps  just  before  175.  Now  his 
words  are  of  great  moment  for  the  whole  question  touching  the 


THE  AGE  OF  ORIGEN— CLEMENT  OF   ROME        237 

public  reading  of  these  non-apostolic  books  in  the  churches. 
He  says  (Eus.  H.  E.  4.  23):  "To-day  then  we  are  passing  the 
Lord's  holy  day,  on  which  we  read  your  letter,  which  we  shall 
ever  have,  reading  it  now  and  then  to  keep  it  in  mind,  as  also 
the  former  one  written  to  us  by  Clement."  Remembering  what 
was  said  above  about  the  point  of  view  from  which  different 
writings  might  be  read  in  church,  we  have  in  the  first  place  to 
observe  that  Dionysius  does  not  make  a  shadow  of  a  distinction 
between  the  reading  of  the  lately  received  letter  of  Soter's  and 
the  reading  of  the  letter  of  Clement  that  had  reached  Corinth 
eighty  years  before. 

We  must  conclude  from  his  words  that  Soter's  letter  was 
read  as  Clement's  was,  or  reversed,  that  Clement's  letter  was  read 
for  the  same  reason,  from  the  same  standpoint,  that  Soter's  was. 
I  see  no  possible  way  of  escaping  this  conclusion.  But  no  one 
can  for  an  instant  think  of  supposing  that  the  letter  of  Soter  that 
had  just  come  was  read  to  the  church  at  Corinth  under  the 
heading :  God  to  Man,  that  it  was  read  as  if  it  were  to  be  valued 
as  highly  as  Paul's  letters  to  the  Corinthians.  And  therefore 
that  must  be  the  case  with  Clement.  Here  at  Corinth,  at  the 
place  from  which  the  copies  of  the  letter  of  Clement  were  sent 
out  to  neighbouring  or  even  to  distant  churches,  the  letter  of 
Clement  of  Rome  was  read  as  a  letter  of  Man  to  Man,  was  read 
in  the  second,  not  in  the  first  division  of  the  writings  used  in 
public  worship.  This  circumstance  must  have  in  general  been 
of  determining  character  for  the  other  churches  which  received 
this  letter  from  the  Corinthians  in  a  copy.  And  this  fact  will 
have  to  be  borne  in  mind  when  we  come  to  other  similar  writings. 
There  may  have  been  here  or  there  a  misconception  as  to  the 
proper  valuation  of  the  letter,  there  may  have  been  churches  that 
took  the  decision  in  their  own  hands  and  declared  this  letter  for 
the  equal  of  the  Pauline  Epistles,  but  the  decision  of  Corinth 
will  certainly  have  been  the  chief  and  overwhelming  decision  for 
the  case  that  anyone  raised  the  question. 

Irenaeus  speaks  of  Clement  as  having  heard  the  apostles,  and 
says  (Eus.  H.  E.  5.  6):  "At  the  time,  then,  of  this  Clement, 
there  being  no  little  dissension  among  the  brethren  in  Corinth, 
the  church  in  Rome  sent  a  most  powerful  letter  to  the 
Corinthians  gathering  them  together  unto  peace  and  renewing 
their  faith."     That  he  calls  it  a  most  powerful  letter  does  not 


238  THE  CANON 

suggest  anything  like  canonicity.  The  word  that  he  uses  for 
letter  is  the  word  for  scripture,  but  it  is  totally  impossible  to 
take  it  here  in  the  specific  sense  of  scripture.  The  sentence 
demands  its  being  taken  in  the  general  sense  of  "writing,"  which 
I  have  given  as  "  letter."  Besides,  Irenceus  uses  the  same  adjective 
"most  powerful,"  and  the  same  root  for  written,  only  this  time 
in  a  participle,  in  speaking  of  Polycarp's  letter  to  the  Philippians. 
So  there  is  no  thought  of  its  being  scripture  in  the  mind  of 
Irenseus.  Clement  of  Alexandria  quotes  his  namesake  often 
and  with  respect,  but  does  not  use  his  letter  as  scripture.  The 
words:  "The  scripture  saith  somewhere,"  which  begin  a  long, 
loose  quotation  from  Clement  of  Rome  in  one  place,  belong  to 
Clement  of  Rome  himself,  save  that  Clement  of  Alexandria  has 
put  in  the  word  scripture  because  the  first  sentence  is  from 
Proverbs.  He  calls  his  namesake  "the  apostle  Clement,"  but 
he  also  with  the  New  Testament  calls  Barnabas  an  apostle,  "  the 
Apostle  Barnabas."  Origen  calls  him  a  "  disciple  of  the  apostles," 
and  in  one  place  "the  faithful  Clement  who  was  testified  to  by  Paul." 
As  for  Eusebius,  it  is  curious  that  in  one  place  (H.  E.  6.  13) 
he  puts  it  with  the  books  that  are  disputed,  saying  of  Clement  of 
Alexandria  that  he  uses  "quotations  also  from  the  disputed 
writings  ('scriptures,'  it  would  be  in  a  different  connection),  both 
from  the  so-called  Wisdom  of  Solomon  and  that  of  Jesus  Sirach 
and  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  both  from  Barnabas  and 
Clement  and  Jude."  Yet  in  the  following  chapter  Eusebius 
describes  Clement  of  Alexandria's  Sketches  as  explaining  all  the 
"  testament-ed  "  scriptures,  not  even  passing  by  the  disputed  ones, 
that  is  to  say,  Jude  and  the  other  Catholic  Epistles  and  the  letter 
of  Barnabas  and  the  Revelation  bearing  the  name  of  Peter," 
leaving  Clement  out  altogether.  And  when  Eusebius  gives  the 
list  of  genuine,  disputed,  and  spurious  books  he  does  not  mention 
Clement  at  all,  although  he  names  a  number  of  the  less  known 
books.  He  does  in  one  passage  (H.  E.  3.  16)  say  of  it:  "And 
we  know  also  that  this  is  read  publicly  before  the  people  in  very 
many  churches,  not  only  of  old,  but  also  in  our  very  own  day  " ; 
yet  it  is  plain,  taking  all  this  together,  that  he  does  not  think  it 
to  be  scripture.  Athanasius  does  not  think  it  necessary  to  name 
it  when  he,  at  the  close  of  his  list  of  the  books  of  scripture, 
excludes  from  that  list  the  Teaching  of  the  Apostles,  which  was 
attributed  to  Clement,  and  the  Shepherd  of  Hermas. 


THE  AGE  OF  ORIGEN— CLEMENT   AND   BARNABAS     239 

Succeeding  Church  writers  quote  it,  but  never  in  such  a  waj 
as  to  indicate  that  it  occurs  to  them  to  regard  it  as  scripture. 
A  reference  to  it  among  the  books  of  the  New  Testament 
in  the  Apostolic  Canons  (Can.  85)  of  the  sixth  century  is 
probably  an  interpolation,  difficult  as  it  is  to  imagine  who  would 
have  put  the  words  in.  The  Greek  text  has :  "  Of  Jude  one,  of 
Clement  two  Epistles,  and  the  Constitutions  addressed  to  you 
the  bishops  by  me  Clement,  .  .  .  and  the  Acts  of  us  the 
apostles."  The  Coptic  text  reads:  "The  Revelation  of  John; 
the  two  Epistles  of  Clement  which  ye  shall  read  aloud." .  In  the 
Alexandrian  manuscript  of  the  Greek  Bible  the  two  letters,  that 
is  to  say,  this  letter  and  the  homily  called  Second  Clement,  stand 
after  the  Revelation.  Had  they  been  conceived  of  as  regular 
books  of  the  New  Testament  they  should  have  stood  with  the 
other  Epistles  and  before  Revelation.  The  same  manuscript 
contains  three  beautiful  Christian  hymns,  which  no  one  so  far  as 
I  know  supposes  to  be  a  part  of  the  New  Testament.  A  list  of 
the  scriptures  added  to  Nicephorus'  Chronography  of  the  early 
ninth  century  put  this  letter  among  the  Apocrypha.  In  the 
twelfth  century  Alexius  Aristenus,  the  steward  of  the  Great  Church 
at  Constantinople,  refers  to  that  list  in  the  Apostolic  Canons,  and 
mentions  the  two  letters  of  Clement  as  scripture,  but  he  stands 
alone  in  this.  The  amount  of  it  all  is,  that  the  letter  of  Clement 
of  Rome  may  here  or  there  possibly  have  been  read  as  scripture, 
but  that  it  never  in  any  way  approached  general  acceptance  as 
anything  more  than  a  good  Christian  book.  It  does  not  appear 
to  have  been  translated  into  Latin,  so  that  there  is  not  even  a 
question  as  to  its  scriptural  authority  in  the  Latin  Church. 

In  the  letter  that  bears  the  name  of  Barnabas  we  again  find 
a  name  that  occurs  in  the  New  Testament,  and  that  the  name  of 
a  man  who  plays  a  large  part  in  the  early  Church  and  holds 
a  more  important  position  than  either  Clement  or  Hernias. 
Clement,  however,  may  perhaps  have  been  Paul's  Clement, 
whereas  neither  the  one  nor  the  other  of  these  other  writers  had 
anything  to  do  with  the  times  of  the  New  Testament.  The 
letter  of  Barnabas  was  probably  written  about  the  year  130. 
Whether  its  author  really  happened  to  bear  the  name  of 
Barnabas  or  not  we  do  not  know,  for  we  know  nothing  about 
him  aside  from  his  book.  The  book  itself  is  certainly  very 
interesting.     We  find  that  it  was  especially  valued  and  used  in 


240  THE  CANON 

Alexandria.  Clement  of  Alexandria  quotes  it  often,  naming  the 
author  simply  (2.  15.  67  and  18.  84)  Barnabas,  or  (2.  6.  31  and 
7.  35)  "the  Apostle  Barnabas."  Once  he  writes  (5.  10.  63): 
"  Barnabas  who  also  himself  preached  the  word  with  the  apostle 
according  to  the  service  of  the  heathen  (in  the  mission  to  the 
heathen)."  Again  he  says  (2.  20.  116):  "I  shall  need  no  more 
words  when  I  add  as  witness  the  apostolic  Barnabas,  who  was  of 
the  Seventy  and  a  fellow-worker  of  Paul's,  saying  word  for  word 
here.  .  .  ."  Origen  quotes  this  letter  also.  For  TertuUian  we 
may  draw  a  very  fair  conclusion  from  his  view  of  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews,  which  we  gave  above.  He  thought  that  Hebrews 
was  quite  a  good  book,  and  he  was  certain  that  it  was  written  by 
the  real  Barnabas,  the  companion  of  Paul,  yet  it  did  not  occur 
to  him  to  regard  it  as  equal  to  scripture.  How  much  less  would 
he  have  thought  that  this  "  Barnabas  "  was  scripture. 

The  name  Barnabas  in  the  Stichometry  in  the  Codex  Claro- 
montanus  is  probably  to  be  used  as  a  proof  that  it  was  in  good 
standing  in  Egypt  at  about  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  century. 
Eusebius  places  it  in  his  list  of  books  among  those  which  are 
spurious,  between  the  Revelation  of  Peter  and  the  Teachings  of  the 
Apostles.  In  the  Codex  Sinaiticus  of  the  Greek  Bible  it  stands 
after  the  Revelation.  As  a  part  of  the  New  Testament  it  would 
have  taken  a  place  among  or  with  the  Epistles,  and  before  the 
book  of  Revelation.  Jerome  says  that  it  is  an  apocryphal  book, 
but  that  it  is  read.  Its  being  read  is  simply  no  sign  of  its  being 
scripture.  It  is  read  as :  Man  to  Man,  as  a  good  book,  but  not 
as  an  equal  of  the  apostolic  books.  In  the  list  in  Nicephorus' 
Chronography,  Barnabas  stands  among  the  disputed  books.  We 
may  say,  then,  of  Barnabas  that  it  shows  far  less  signs  of  wide  use 
than  Clement  of  Rome's  letter  does,  but  we  may  take  it  for 
granted  that,  like  Clement's  letter,  it  will  here  or  there  have 
been  accepted  as  equal  to  the  books  of  the  New  Testament. 
But  that  can  have  occurred  but  rarely.  After  the  fourth  century 
it  seems  gradually  to  have  faded  out  of  the  thoughts  of  the 
Church. 

We  now  come  to  a  book  which  secured  to  itself  a  host  of 
readers  and  friends.  The  Shepherd,  written  by  Hermas  the 
brother  of  Pius  the  bishop  of  Rome,  probably  about  the  year 
140,  is  a  beautiful  book  of  Christian  dreams,  putting  to  flight 
every  assault  of  doubt,  and  urging  the  faithful  to  endurance  and 


THE   AGE  OF  ORIGEN— HERMAS  24I 

to  patience  in  certain  hope  of  the  future  glory.  The  fragment 
of  Muratori  gives  us  over  seven  lines  upon  this  book,  and 
furnishes  the  only  account  of  its  origin.  It  says  :  "  The  Shepherd, 
moreover,  Hermas  wrote  but  very  lately  in  our  times  in  the  city 
of  Rome,  Pius  the  bishop  his  brother  being  seated  in  the  chair 
of  the  Roman  church,  and  therefore  it  should  be  read,  but  it 
cannot  until  the  end  of  time  be  published  (that  is :  read  as  if 
it  were  scripture)  in  the  church  before  the  people,  neither  among 
the  completed  number  of  the  prophets  nor  among  the  apostles." 
That  tells  us  that  two  kinds  of  scripture  books  were  then  read  in 
the  church,  prophets  and  apostles.  The  "  prophets  "  include  Law, 
Prophets,  and  Books,  the  whole  Old  Testament,  and  the  author 
of  this  list  is  sure  that  the  hst  of  those  books  is  completed.  That 
is  an  announcement  that  the  Old  Testament  canon  was  closed 
for  him  at  least.  He  does  not  say  that  the  list  of  the  apostolic 
books  has  been  closed,  and  the  inference  from  the  contrast  is 
that  it  is  not  yet  closed  as  far  as  he  is  concerned.  But  be  that 
as  it  may,  one  thing  is  settled,  Hermas  may  be  read  as  a  good 
book,  yet  it  may  never  to  the  end  of  time  be  accounted  a  part 
of  scripture.     That  is  a  strong  statement. 

The  essay  on  the  Dice-Players,  written  by  we  do  not  know 
whom  towards  the  end  of  the  second  century,  calls  the 
Revelation  and  Hermas  scripture,  but  does  not  name  the 
words  of  Jesus  and  the  apostles  scripture.  Hermas  is  quoted 
by  Irenaeus  as  scripture  (4.  20.  2) :  "  Well  spoke  therefore  the 
scripture  which  says  :  First  of  all  believe  that  one  is  God,  He 
that  created  all  things  and  wrought  them  out  and  made  all  things 
from  that  which  was  not,  into  being."  The  word  "scripture" 
seems  there  to  be  used  in  its  proper  and  full  sense.  It  would  be 
possible  to  suggest  that  it  was  a  momentary  slip  of  the  memory 
on  the  part  of  Irenaeus,  were  it  not  for  the  fact  that  the  words 
stand  in  a  prominent  place  in  Hermas.  The  words  sound 
scriptural  enough.  If  anyone  should  quote  them  to-day  to  a 
good  Christian,  who  was  not  a  Scotchman  or  a  Wiirtemberger 
that  knew  every  verse  from  Genesis  to  Revelation,  he  would  be 
very  likely  for  the  moment  to  accept  the  quotation  as  a  good  one, 
and  to  blame  his  memory  for  thinking  that  it  sounded  after  all  a 
little  odd.  It  is  also  fair  to  remember  that  we  found  Justin 
Martyr  mistaking  the  book  in  which  a  quotation  was,  and  here 
Clement  does  not  name  Hermas.  Immediately  afterwards  he 
16 


242  THE  CANON 

names  Malachi.  We  are  led  to  make  all  these  excuses  because 
the  case  seems  so  strange.  When  Eusebius  quotes  this  passage 
from  Irenaeus,  in  giving  an  account  of  the  literature  used  by 
Irenaeus,  he  used  himself  the  word  "writing"  in  the  general  way, 
not  as  of  scripture.  He  says  (H,  E.  5.  8,  7) :  "And  he  not  only 
knows  but  also  receives" — that  must  mean  as  scripture — "the 
writing  of  the  Shepherd  saying :  Well  spoke,  therefore,  the  scrip- 
ture which  says,"  etc.  Enough  about  the  one  passage  which  is 
from  a  prominent  writer,  and  which  assigns  to  a  book  not  in  the 
New  Testament  the  rank  of  a  New  Testament  book.  Clement 
of  Alexandria  quotes  Hermas  nine  times,  but  never  as  scripture. 
He  usually  refers  not  to  the  author,  but  to  the  one  who  has 
spoken  to  Hermas  :  "  For  the  power  that  appeared  in  the  dream 
to  Hermas,"  "  The  shepherd  the  angel  of  repentance,  speaks  to 
Hermas,"  "  Divinely  therefore  the  power,  uttering  according  to 
revelation  the  visions  to  Hermas,  says." 

TertuUian,  our  Carthaginian  lawyer,  is  clear  in  his  mind 
about  Hermas.  It  has  often  been  said  that  he  called  Hermas 
"  scripture  "  while  he  was  still  a  Catholic,  but  that  he  condemned 
the  book  after  he  had  become  a  Montanist.  The  fact  is,  that 
he  mentions  the  book  twice,  once  contemptuously  and  briefly 
while  he  was  a  Catholic,  and  once  at  length  and  violently 
after  he  had  left  the  Church.  He  says  in  his  wonderful  essay 
on  prayer  (ch.  16):  "For  what,  then,  if  that  Hermas,  whose 
book  (writing,  scripture)  is  inscribed  something  like  Shepherd, 
after  he  had  finished  praying  had  not  sat  down  on  the  bed, 
but  had  done  something  else,  should  we  also  insist  upon  it 
that  that  was  to  be  observed?  Not  at  all."  There  is  nothing 
but  contempt  in  his  allusion  to  "that  Hermas"  whose  book 
was  perhaps  called  Shepherd,  perhaps  something  else.  But 
TertuUian  had  not  time  then  to  busy  himself  with  Hermas.  The 
time  for  Hermas  came  when  TertuUian  wrote  his  treatise  on 
Modesty.  In  one  place  in  it  (ch.  20,  see  above  at  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews)  he  says,  would  that  that  Epistle  were  more 
common  among  the  churches :  "Than  that  apocryphal  Shepherd 
of  the  adulterers."  In  another  place  (ch.  10)  he  delivers  himself 
as  follows :  "  But  I  should  yield  to  you,  if  the  writing  (scripture)  of 
the  Shepherd,  which  only  loves  adulterers,  should  have  been 
worthy  to  fall  into  the  divine  instrument  (instrument  is  testament), 
if  it  had  not  been  condemned  by  every  council  of  the  churches, 


THE  AGE  OF  ORIGEN— HERMAS  243 

even  of  yours,  among  the  apocryphal  and  false  (books  or  things), 
an  adulteress  (the  word  for  writing  being  feminine)  both  herself, 
and  thence  a  patroness  of  her  companions,  from  whom  also  you 
would  initiate  others,  whom  that  Shepherd  perhaps  would  defend, 
whom  you  depict  on  the  cup,  himself  a  prostituter  of  the  Christian 
sacrament,  and  deservedly  the  idol  of  drunkenness  and  the  asylum 
of  the  adultery  about  to  follow  upon  the  cup,  from  which  thou 
wouldst  taste  nothing  more  gladly  than  the  sheep  of  a  second 
penitence.  But  I  draw  from  the  scriptures  of  that  shepherd  who 
cannot  be  broken.  This  one  John  (the  Baptist)  at  once  offers  me 
with  the  bath  and  office  of  penitence,  saying :  Bring  forth  fruits 
worthy  of  repentance." 

That  is  a  rich  passage.  We  learn  that  the  Churches  often 
had  a  shepherd  on  the  communion  cup.  We  learn,  what 
we  thus  far  know  from  no  other  source,  that  more  than  one, 
doubtless  several,  synods  had  discussed  the  question  as  to  the 
admission  at  least  of  Hermas,  and  probably  of  other  books, 
to  the  number  of  the  New  Testament  books.  And  we  learn 
that  the  Shepherd  had  been  strictly  and  everywhere  condemned, 
not  only  in  synods  of  heretical,  of  Montanist  clergymen,  but 
also  in  regular  synods  of  the  Catholic  Church.  How  widely 
spread  these  synods  were  does  not  appear.  They  may  have 
been  only  in  Africa,  in  the  province  about  Carthage.  We  should 
expect  to  hear  or  to  have  heard  something  about  them  if  they 
had  also  been  held  in  Italy  or  in  eastern  Africa. 

Perhaps  we  should  know  a  little  more  about  what  the  churches 
in  eastern  Africa  and  Palestine  thought  of  Hermas  if  we  had  the 
Greek  original  of  Origen's  commentary  on  Romans.  The  Latin 
translation  of  the  commentary  on  Rom.  161^,  where  Hermas  is 
named,  reads :  "  Yet  I  think  that  this  Hermas  is  the  writer  of 
that  little  book  which  is  called  the  Shepherd,  which  book  (writing, 
scripture)  seems  to  me  to  be  extremely  useful  and,  as  I  think, 
divinely  inspired."  That  seems  all  very  well.  But  it  does  not 
sound  like  Origen,  and  the  translator  Rufinus  tells  Heraclius,  to 
whom  he  wrote  on  finishing  the  translation  of  this  commentary, 
what  an  "immense  and  inextricable  labour  had  weighed  upon 
him"  in  the  translation  of  this  very  commentary,  in  supplying 
what  Origen  had  omitted,  which  means,  in  making  a  good 
orthodox  book  out  of  the  work  of  that  wild  Origen.  These  words 
are  therefore  no  guide  to  Origen's  view  touching  Hermas.     In 


244  THE  CANON 

his  commentary  on  Matthew,  while  discussing  Matt.  19"^  at 
great  length,  he  says :  "  And  if  it  be  necessary  venturing  to 
bring  in  a  suggestion  from  a  book  (writing,  scripture)  that  is 
current  in  the  Church,  but  not  agreed  by  all  to  be  divine,  the 
passage  could  be  drawn  from  the  Shepherd  about  some  who  at 
once  when  they  believed  were  under  Michael."  He  gives  the 
passage.  But  he  says  at  the  close  :  "  But  I  think  that  this  is  not 
proper,"  so  that  he  does  not  seem  to  have  any  great  opinion  of 
Hermas  after  all. 

Eusebius  places  it  among  the  spurious  books.  He  names 
as  the  first  of  these  the  Acts  of  Paul,  then  the  book  called 
the  Shepherd,  and  then  the  Revelation  of  Peter.  It  stands  in 
the  Codex  Sinaiticus  with  Barnabas  after  the  Revelation,  and  it 
was  still  copied  in  Latin  Bibles  as  late  as  the  fifteenth  century ; 
it  stood  in  them  between  Psalms  and  Proverbs,  a  strange  place 
for  a  book  that  was  like  neither  the  one  nor  the  other  of  the  two. 
Athanasius,  in  his  letter  announcing  the  date  of  Easter,  the  thirty- 
ninth  letter,  of  the  year  367,  names  it  at  the  end  with  certain  non- 
canonical  books  that  are  allowed  to  be  read,  namely,  the  Wisdom 
of  Solomon,  the  Wisdom  of  Sirach,  Esther,  Judith,  Tobit,  the 
Teachings  of  the  Apostle,  and  the  Shepherd.  It  is  the  last  of  all. 
Jerome  has  been  supposed  to  refer  to  Hermas  in  one  passage  as : 
"  That  apocryphal  book  to  be  condemned  of  stupidity  "  ;  but  as  he 
elsewhere  quotes  it  with  respect  and  regards  it  as  a  churchly  book, 
and  as  one  useful  to  be  read,  he  probably  has  in  that  passage 
some  other  book  in  view. 

In  the  manuscript  of  the  Pauline  Epistles  named  Claro- 
montanus,  which  is  supposed  to  be  of  the  sixth  century,  we 
find,  before  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  a  Stichometry,  a  list 
of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  which  is  very  old,  probably 
much  older  than  the  manuscript  itself.  In  this  list  we  have 
at  the  close  Revelation,  Acts,  then  the  Shepherd,  and  after  it 
the  Acts  of  Paul  and  the  Revelation  of  Peter.  Here  it  is 
placed  in  contact  with  the  New  Testament,  yet  it  takes  its 
character  also  from  the  two  books  which  follow  it.  The  fact  of 
its  being  in  that  list  at  that  point  can  scarcely  be  considered  as 
a  certain  testimony  to  the  canonicity  of  Hermas  at  that  time 
and  in  that  place.  But  though  the  manuscript  was  undoubtedly 
written  in  the  West,  and  though  this  list  is  a  Latin  list,  the 
approach   to   canonicity,   or   if  any  one   please   the   canonicity 


THE  AGE  OF  ORIGEN— POLYCARP  245 

claimed  for  it  here,  is  part  and  parcel  of  the  same  thing  that  we 
saw  in  the  case  of  Clement  of  Alexandria.  The  list  appears 
to  be  of  Egyptian  origin,  although  it  may  be  connected  with 
Eusebius.  It  probably  dates  from  the  beginning  or  middle  of 
the  fourth  century.  Hermas  is  supposed  to  have  ceased  to  be 
used,  or  to  be  read  in  church  in  the  East,  where  it  had  happened 
to  be  so  read,  in  the  fourth  or  fifth  century. 

We  have  already  mentioned  Polycarp's  letter  to  the  church 
at  Philippi.  It  was  not  singular,  when  we  consider  the  important 
position  held  by,  and  the  wide  influence  exercised  by,  Polycarp, 
not  only  in  his  immediate  neighbourhood  but  also  through  widely 
distant  provinces,  that  this  letter  should  be  highly  prized  and 
repeatedly  read  in  the  churches  that  secured  copies  of  it. 
Jerome,  in  speaking  of  Polycarp,  says  (de  vir.  ill.  17) :  "  He  wrote 
to  the  Philippians  an  exceedingly  useful  letter  which  is  read  in  the 
Church  of  Asia  until  to-day."  The  expression  is  not  definite. 
It  points,  however,  not  to  Philippi  in  Macedonia  but  to  Asia.  It 
is  to  be  presupposed  that  at  least  in  Philippi  itself,  if  not  in  other 
churches  in  Macedonia,  the  letter  also  continued  to  be  read. 
The  phrase  "  in  the  Church  of  Asia  "  cannot  be  used  of  a  single 
congregation.  It  means  the  Church  in  Asia.  Yet  it  need  not 
be  supposed  that  every  single  church  used  the  letter,  and  there 
is  not  the  least  reason  for  taking  the  word  Asia  in  anything  more 
than  the  most  general  sense.  In  other  words,  we  do  full  justice, 
I  think,  to  Jerome's  statement  if  we  suppose  that  a  few  of  the 
churches  in  western  Asia  Minor  at  his  day  still  continued  to  read 
this  letter.  It  was  certainly  read  as :  Man  to  Man,  and  not  as 
equal  to  the  books  of  the  New  Testament.  Nothing  indicates 
the  latter.  It  stands  on  the  same  basis  as  the  letters  of  Dionysius 
of  Corinth. 

One  book  that  now  seems  to  stand  very  near  to  the  Gospels, 
and  again  moves  further  away  from  them,  demands  particular 
attention.  But  we  shall  scarcely  reach  any  very  definite 
conclusion  about  it.  It  is  like  an  ignis  fatuus  in  the  literature  of 
the  Church  of  the  first  three  centuries.  We  cannot  even  tell 
from  the  statements  about  it  precisely  who,  of  the  writers  who 
refer  to  it,  really  saw  it.  Yes,  we  are  even  not  sure  that  it  is  not 
kaleidoscopic  or  plural.  It  may  be  that  several,  or  at  least  two, 
different  books  are  referred  to,  and  that  even  by  people  who 
fancy  that  there  is  but  one  book,  and  that  they  know  it.     This  is 


246  THE  CANON 

the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews,  or  the  Gospel  of  the 
Hebrews. 

Let  us  first  name  the  possibilities,  say  what  may  have  been 
alluded  to  under  this  designation.  Every  reader  will  at  once 
turn  in  thought  to  the  "previous  Gospel"  or  to  the  "sayings 
of  Jesus"  that  we  have  referred  to  as  having  probably  been 
written  by  the  Twelve -Apostle  Matthew  and  in  Hebrew  or 
Aramaic.  Nothing  would  be  easier  than  for  any  or  every  one  w^ho 
saw,  read,  or  heard  of  that  book,  either  and  particularly  in  its 
original  Semitic  garb  or  even  in  its  Greek  dress  in  the  form 
under  which  the  writers  of  our  Gospels  used  it,  to  call  it  the 
Gospel  to  the  Hebrews,  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews,  or 
the  Hebrews'  Gospel.  The  second  possibility  I  must  mention, 
although  I  hold  it  myself  to  be  an  impossibility.  For  those,  and 
there  are  doubtless  still  scholars  who  hold  the  opinion,  who  think 
that  our  Gospel  according  to  Matthew  w^as  at  first  a  Hebrew 
book,  the  name  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrew^s  might  w^ell 
have  attached  to  it.  Not  only  the  language  but  also  the  many 
references  to  the  fulfilment  of  prophecy,  the  close  connection  of 
the  w^hole  with  the  Old  Testament,  would  seem  to  justify  the  use 
of  this  title.  The  third  possibiUty  is  that  this  designation  has 
nothing  to  do  with  our  Gospels  or  with  their  sources,  but  that  it 
properly  attaches  to  a  real  Gospel,  that  is  to  say,  to  a  full  account 
of  the  words  and  deeds  of  Jesus  from  the  beginning  of  His 
ministry  to  His  death  and  resurrection,  which  was  written  in 
Hebrew  or  Aramaic.  The  date  of  this  Gospel  may  have,  almost 
must  have,  been  quite  early,  seeing  that  after  the  composition  and 
distribution  of  copies  of  our  Gospels  one  would  look  for  a  transla- 
tion of  one  of  them  rather  than  for  the  preparation  of  a  totally 
new  Gospel.  This  third  possibility  regards  the  Gospel  as  one 
from  the  circles  that  were  in  touch  with  the  general  Church. 

The  fourth  possibility  passes  this  line,  and  regards  this  Gospel 
as  the  product  of  some  branch,  sect,  offshoot  from  the  central 
form  of  Christianity  at  that  day,  as  the  Gospel  of  some  Ebionitic 
or  other  Jewish  Christian  group,  for  the  language  limits  the  search 
to  Jewish  lines.  This  Gospel  need  not  then  have  been  at  all  an 
autochthon  gospel,  one  that  arose  independently  from  a  root  of 
its  own  upon  Palestinian  soil.  It  may  have  been  a  revamping 
within  still  more  narrow  Jewish  limits  of  what  our  Gospel 
according  to  Matthew  contains,  or  its  author  may  have  had  the 


THE  AGE  OF  ORIGEN— GOSPEL  TO   THE  HEBREWS      247 

three  synoptic  Gospels  before  him.  Yet  even  in  this  case  it 
would  be  to  be  expected  that  the  author  or  composer  should  add 
to  what  he  found  in  writing  before  him  many  a  trait  and  many  a 
saying  attributed  justly  or  of  no  right  to  Jesus  in  the  Palestinian 
group  to  which  he  himself  belonged.  A  fifth  possibility,  not  a 
probability,  would  be  that  some  Christian  from  one  of  the  more 
exclusively  Jewish  groups  had  written  this  Gospel,  not  in  Hebrew 
but  in  Greek,  intending  it  for  the  Jews  in  the  Diaspora,  and  thus 
offering  an  evangelical  parallel  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 
These  possibilities  will  suffice  for  the  moment.  It  may  be  added 
here  that,  as  a  matter  of  course,  such  a  Gospel,  whatever  the 
circumstances  of  its  origin  may  have  been,  the  moment  that  it 
presented  matter  foreign  to  what  our  Gospels  bring,  must  have 
been  used  as  a  source  for  interpolations,  for  the  addition  of  words, 
sentences,  sayings,  paragraphs  to  our  Gospels.  One  might  almost 
suppose  that  the  readers  of  our  Gospels  who  knew  and  read  that 
Gospel,  either  in  Aramaic  or  in  a  Greek  translation,  would  scarcely 
fail  to  insert  in  the  synoptic  text,  or  later  in  the  text  of  the  Fourth 
Gospel,  all  important  additions,  all  that  seemed  to  them  worth 
while  to  record,  that  the  Gospel  to  the  Hebrews  contained,  and 
therefore  that  if  we  should  find  some  day  this  Gospel,  it  would 
prove  to  be  almost  entirely  familiar  to  us  out  of  our  own  Gospels 
and  their  interpolations,  the  fragments  put  into  them. 

In  passing  now  to  the  examination  of  the  references  to  some 
such  Hebraic  Gospel  we  must  be  ready  in  advance  to  find 
allusions  which  cannot  with  certainty  be  ascribed  to  the  one  or 
the  other  of  the  possibilities  mentioned.  First  of  all,  we  must 
recur  to  Papias,  of  whom  Eusebius  says  that  he  has  the  story 
of  a  woman,  apparently  the  adulteress  of  John  7^3_gii^ 
which  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews  contains.  But 
Eusebius  does  not  say,  evidently  is  not  sure,  that  Papias  drew  it 
from  that  Gospel.  Then  we  must  turn  to  those  words  about 
Hegesippus,  who  as  Eusebius  tells  us  brings  material  "from  the 
Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews."  Perhaps  it  was  in  this 
Gospel  that  he  found  the  following  words,  which  must  have  been 
taken  from  i  Corinthians  2^,  which  again  is  based  upon  Isaiah 
64* :  "  That  the  good  things  prepared  for  the  righteous  neither 
eye  hath  seen  nor  ear  hath  heard  nor  has  entered  into  the  heart 
of  man."  Stephen  Gobarus,  as  quoted  by  Photius  (cod.  232), 
declares  that  Hegesippus,  in  the  fifth  book  of  his  Memoirs,  decries 


248  THE  CANON 

these  words  as  false,  and  quotes  Matthew  13^^  as  right :  "Blessed 
are  your  eyes  that  see  and  your  ears  that  hear,"  etc.  But  it  may 
be  that  Hegesippus  really  is  combating  a  heretical  application  of 
these  words.  It  has  also  been  suggested  that  they  are  even  not 
taken  by  Paul  from  Isaiah,  but  from  an  apocryphal  book,  and  that 
Hegesippus  has  this  apocryphal  author  in  view  and  not  the  Gospel 
to  the  Hebrews. 

In  Justin  Martyr  (Dial.  103)  we  have  a  quotation  that  might 
very  well  come  from  this  Gospel.  He  writes  of  Jesus  after  the 
baptism :  "  For  also  this  devil  at  the  time  that  He  came  up 
from  the  river  Jordan,  the  voice  having  said  to  Him :  Thou  art 
my  wSon,  I  have  begotten  Thee  to-day,  in  the  Memoirs  of  the 
apostles  is  written  coming  up  to  Him  and  tempting  Him  so  far  as 
to  say  to  Him  :  Worship  me."  Now  Justin  does  not  give  the 
Memoirs  for  these  words  of  the  voice.  We  must  observe  further 
that  it  would  be  very  fitting  for  a  Jewish  writer  to  apply  these 
words  of  the  Second  Psalm  to  Jesus  here  at  the  baptism.  And 
we  find,  oddly  enough,  that  these  words  have  been  put  into 
the  passage  in  Luke  3^"^  in  the  manuscript  of  Beza,  Codex  D, 
which  represents  the  text  that  was  wrought  over  by  many  busy 
hands  in  the  second  century.  And  Augustine  tells  us  that  some 
manuscripts  in  his  day  had  these  words  there  in  Luke,  although 
they  were  not  to  be  found  in  the  older  Greek  manuscripts.  It 
was  said  above  that  this  Gospel  might  have,  for  example,  Ebionitic 
connections ;  it  is  therefore  interesting  to  observe  here  that 
Epiphanius  gives  this  saying  for  the  voice  at  the  baptism  as 
contained  in  the  Ebionitic  Gospel  according  to  Matthew.  We 
must  revert  to  that  again  in  a  moment. 

Justin,  referring  in  another  passage  (Dial.  88)  to  the  baptism, 
touches  another  point  that  may  be  from  this  Gospel.  He  says : 
"  When  Jesus  came  down  to  the  water  a  fire  was  also  kindled  in 
the  Jordan."  Here  that  Ebionitic  Gospel  (Epiph.  30.  13)  says 
that  after  Jesus  came  up  from  the  water,  and  after  the  voice  had 
spoken :  "  And  at  once  a  great  light  shone  about  the  place." 
From  this  difference  it  would  at  first  not  seem  possible  that 
Justin's  source  and  the  Ebionitic  Gospel  could  be  the  same. 
But  when  we  reflect  that  Justin  is  not  quoting  but  telling  about 
it,  and  when  we  remember  how  loosely  Justin  quotes  even  when 
he  does  quote,  it  would  appear  to  be  quite  possible  that  he  had 
here  put  a  fire  for  a  great  light.     The  general  thought  remains 


THE  AGE  OF  ORIGEN— GOSPEL  TO  THE   HEBREWS     249 

the  same.  However,  the  time  of  the  phenomenon  is  different. 
Justin's  story  lets  the  Jordan  burn  as  Jesus  enters  into  it,  whereas 
the  Ebionitic  account  assumes  that  the  light  is  a  heavenly 
accompaniment  as  a  confirmation  of  or  corollary  to  the  words  of 
the  voice.  This  light  also  appears  in  a  Latin,  an  old  Latin 
manuscript  which  may  also  here  stand  as  a  representative  of  that 
re-wrought  text  of  the  second  century. 

Justin  may  have  found  another  saying  of  Jesus  in  this  Gospel. 
He  writes  (Dial.  47):  "Wherefore  also  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
said :  In  what  things  I  take  you,  in  these  shall  I  also  judge 
you."  That  can  hardly  be,  as  some  have  thought,  another  form 
for  John  5^0 :  "  As  I  hear,  I  judge."  Clement  of  Alexandria  gives 
the  same  phrase,  only  a  trifle  altered  (Quis  Dives,  40) :  "  At  what 
I  find  you,  at  these  also  I  shall  judge,"  and  he  does  not  give  an 
author  for  it.  The  Sinaitic  monk  John  of  the  Ladder  attributes 
it  to  Ezekiel.  Justin  may  have  it  from  the  Gospel  to  the 
Hebrews.  There  is  then  one  other  saying  of  Jesus,  also  already 
mentioned  above  in  another  connection  when  we  spoke  of  Justin. 
He  says  in  between  two  quotations  from  Matthew  (Dial.  35)  as 
all  three  spoken  by  Jesus :  "There  will  be  schisms  and  heresies." 
It  is  possible  that  these  words  simply  offer  us  a  combination  of 
two  of  the  kinds  of  error  we  have  found  to  occur  in  Justin,  loose 
quotation  and  reference  to  a  wrong  book,  and  that  they  are  only 
a  "Justinian"  form  for  i  Corinthians  11  ^^-i^.  But  they  may 
be  from  the  Gospel  to  the  Hebrews.  The  Clementine  Homilies 
combine  these  words  with  the  quotation  from  Matthew  which 
follows  them  in  Justin,  so  that  they  appear  to  have  used  Justin  and 
to  have  confused  what  Justin  kept  at  least  that  far  apart.  Never- 
theless they  write  :  "  As  the  Lord  said." 

Eusebius  says  that  the  Ebionites  use  only  the  Gospel  accord- 
ing to  the  Hebrews,  and  think  that  the  other  Gospels  are  not 
worth  much.  The  question  for  us  is,  whether  we  should  com- 
bine this  with  what  we  observed  above  as  to  the  similarity 
between  the  text  of  the  Ebionites  and  the  singular  passages  in 
Justin,  or  whether  we  should  suppose  that  Eusebius  thought  that 
the  Ebionites  used  a  Hebrew  Gospel  that  was  the  equivalent  of 
our  Greek  Matthew.  When  Eusebius  makes  his  list  of  the  New 
Testament  books  he  gives  the  accepted  books,  then  the  disputed 
ones,  then  the  spurious  ones,  tacking  on  the  Revelation  doubt- 
fully, and  finally  he  adds  (H.  E.  3.  25) :  "But  some  also  reckon 


250  THE  CANON 

among  these  the  Gospel  according  to  the   Hebrews,  in  which 
especially  the  Hebrews  who  have  received  Christ  take  pleasure." 

Epiphanius  says  (Haer.  30.  13)  that  the  Ebionites  use  the  Gospel 
of  Matthew:  "not," however,  full  and  complete,  but  spoiled  and 
cut  down  (mutilated),  and  they  call  this  the  Hebrew  [Gospel]." 
Now  here  again  we  must  ask  whether  Epiphanius  is  right  in 
thinking  that  this  is  Matthew  mutilated,  or  whether  the  Gospel 
that  they  used  was  that  shorter  Gospel  which  we  suppose  Matthew 
to  have  written,  and  which  was  then  used  in  the  composition,  for 
example,  of  our  Matthew.  Of  course,  it  would  look  like  a 
mutilated  Matthew  although  it  w^ere  precisely,  on  the  contrary,  a 
Matthew  that  had  not  yet  been  bolstered  out  from  other  sources. 
In  another  passage  (Hier.  30.  3)  Epiphanius  says:  "And  they 
also  receive  the  Gospel  according  to  Matthew.  For  this  they 
also,  as  also  those  who  follow  Cerinthus  and  Merinthus,  use  alone. 
And  they  call  it :  according  to  the  Hebrews,  as  in  truth  it  is  to 
be  said,  that  Matthew  alone  in  the  New  Testament  made  a  repre- 
sentation and  proclamation  of  the  Gospel  in  Hebrew  and  in 
Hebrew  letters."  Now,  when  Epiphanius  speaks  of  the  Nazarenes 
(H^er.  29.  9)  he  says:  "And  they  have  the  Gospel  according  to 
Matthew  most  complete  in  Hebrew.  For  with  them  clearly  this 
is  still  preserved  as  it  was  written  from  the  beginning  in  Hebrew 
letters.  But  I  do  not  know  whether  they  have  taken  away  the 
genealogies  from  Abraham  till  Christ."  The  last  words  show  that 
he  really  knows  nothing  about  this  Gospel.  It  may  also  be  the 
short  preliminary  Gospel.  That  only  impresses  more  strongly  the 
thought  just  urged,  namely,  that  Epiphanius  may  in  his  ignorance 
have  confused  reports  of  the  usual  Gospel  according  to  Matthew 
with  those  of  the  previous  preliminary  Gospel. 

Clement  of  Alexandria  quotes  this  Gospel  simply  with  the 
formula  "it  is  written"  (2.  9.  45):  "In  the  Gospel  according  to 
the  Hebrews  it  is  written :  He  that  admires  shall  rule,  and  he 
that  ruled  shall  cease."  Origen  quotes  it,  for  example,  thus  (on 
John,  vol.  2.  12  [6]):  "And  if  anyone  api)roaches  the  Gospel 
according  to  the  Hebrews,  where  the  Saviour  Himself  says  " ;  and 
again  he  quotes  precisely  the  same  passage,  saying:  "And  if 
anyone  accepts  the  words."  In  his  Theophany  (4.  13)  Eusebius 
quotes  a  Hebrew  Gospel,  in  discussing  the  parable  of  the  talents, 
thus  :  "  But  the  Gospel  which  has  reached  us  in  Hebrew  characters 
fastened  the  threat  not  upon  the  one  who  hid  away,  but  upon  the 


THE  AGE  OF  OKIGKN— GOSPEL  TO   THE   IlEHREWS      25  I 

one  who  lived  luxuriously."  That  may  have  been  merely  a 
Syriac  copy  of  our  Gospels,  but  it  may  have  been  the  Gospel 
according  to  the  Hebrews  in  one  of  its  chameleon  phases. 
Theodoret's  remarks  on  the  Ebionites  and  this  Gospel  are  clearly 
a  poor  condensation  of  what  Eusebius  says. 

Jerome  knew  this  Gospel  well,  and  translated  it  into  (ireek 
and  Latin  (de  vir.  ill.  2),  and  said  that  Origen  often  used  it.  He 
tells  us  that  it  was  written  in  the  Ghaldee  and  Syrian  language, 
but  in  Hebrew  letters,  and  that  it  was  still  used  in  his  day  by  the 
Nazarenes,  and  he  names  it  also  (adv.  Pel.  3.  2)  "according  to 
the  Apostles,  or  as  many  think  according  to  Matthew,  which  also 
is  in  the  library  at  Caesarea."  The  use  of  Hebrew  letters  for 
Syriac  was  nothing  strange.  The  Jews  write  and  print  to-day  in 
various  languages,  using  Hebrew  letters.  I  have  a  German  New 
Testament  printed  in  Berlin  nearly  eighty  years  ago  in  Hebrew 
letters.  Jerome  (de  vir.  ill.  3)  seems  to  have  copied  this  Gospel 
from  a  manuscript  which  Nazarenes  in  Beroea  (Aleppo)  possessed. 
The  vague  way  in  which  he  speaks  of  it  shows  that  he  did  not 
regard  it,  or  at  any  rate  that  he  was  perfectly  sure  that  others 
would  not  regard  it,  as  apostolic.  He  says  of  its  authority  (adv. 
Pel.  3.  2):  "Which  testimonies,  if  you  do  not  use  them  for 
authority,  use  them  at  least  for  age  (antiquity),  what  all  churchly 
men  have  thought."  Bede,  who  died  in  735,  counted  it  among 
"the  churchly  histories,"  because  Jerome  had  used  it  so  often. 
In  the  list  given  in  the  Chronography  of  Nicephorus  it  stands  as 
the  fourth  of  the  four  disputed  books  :  Revelation  of  John,  Reve- 
lation of  Peter,  Barnabas,  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews. 
That  is  the  great  Gospel  that  lies  outside  of  our  New  Testament. 
We  shall  doubtless  some  day  receive  a  copy  of  it  in  the  original, 
or  in  a  translation.  It  may  have  contained  much  of  what 
Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke  contain,  without  that  fact  having  been 
brought  to  our  notice  in  the  quotations  made  from  it.  For  those 
who  {juoted  it  did  so  precisely  in  order  to  give  that  which  varied 
from  the  contents  of  our  four  Gospels,  or  especially  of  the  three 
synoptic  ones. 

It  will  not  be  necessary  to  treat  at  length  of  other  Gospels. 
None  of  them  approaches  the  importance  of  the  Gospel  accord- 
ing to  the  Hebrews.  The  Gospel  of  the  Ebionites  and  that  of 
the  Nazarenes  doubtless  were  taken  by  some  authors  to  be  the 
same  as  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews,  and  may  have 


252  THE  CANON 

been  closely  related  to  it.  It  should  not  be  forgotten  that,  just 
as  the  text  of  our  Gospels  was  much  re-wrought  during  the 
second  century,  so  also  these  Gospels  or  this  Gospel,  if  the  three 
should  happen  to  be  one,  will  surely  have  been  re-wrought.  In 
consequence  of  that  it  will  be  possible  that  differences  that 
appear  in  the  form  are  due  to  different  recensions  and  not  to 
different  books.  In  discussing  asceticism  Clement  of  Alexandria 
refers  to  things  supposed  to  have  been  said  by  Jesus  to  Salome. 
He  says  (3.  9.  6^) :  "  It  stands,  I  think,  in  the  Gospel  according 
to  the  Egyptians."  In  another  place,  writing  against  the  leader 
of  the  Docetae,  Julius  Cassianos,  who  had  urged  some  of  the 
Salome  passages,  he  says  (3.  13.  93) :  "  First,  then,  we  have  not 
this  saying  in  the  four  Gospels  that  have  been  handed  down  to  us, 
but  in  that  according  to  the  Egyptians."  Origen,  in  the  discus- 
sion of  the  first  verse  of  Luke,  says :  "  The  Church  has  four 
Gospels,  the  heresies  a  number,  of  which  one  is  entitled  accord- 
ing to  the  Egyptians,  another  according  to  the  twelve  apostles. 
Even  Basilides  dared  to  write  a  Gospel,  and  to  put  his  name  in 
the  title."  Epiphanius  writes  of  Sabellius  and  his  followers 
(Haer.  62.  2):  "But  they  have  all  their  error,  and  the  power 
of  their  error  from  some  apocrypha,  especially  from  the 
so-called  Egyptian  Gospel,  to  w^hich  they  gave  this  name." 
None  of  these  references  implies  an  equality  of  this  Gospel  to 
our  four. 

In  the  passage  on  Luke  i^  Origen  named  not  only  the  two 
given  above,  but  also  one  according  to  Mathias.  The  Latin 
translation  speaks  also  of  the  Gospel  of  Thomas  before  that  of 
Mathias,  but  it  may  be  a  later  addition.  To  the  Gospel  of 
Thomas  might  be  added  the  name  of  another  of  the  later 
Gospels,  the  Gospel  of  the  Infancy,  and  perhaps,  too,  that  of 
Nicodemus.  The  Gospel  of  Nicodemus  was  in  Canterbury, 
chained  to  a  pillar,  as  late  as  the  time  of  Erasmus. 

A  Gospel  or  a  teaching  and  acts  and  a  revelation  were  adorned 
with  the  name  of  Peter.  Ignatius  seems  to  refer  to  this  when 
he  writes  to  the  church  at  Smyrna  (ch.  3) :  "  And  when  he  came 
to  those  about  Peter,  he  said  to  them :  Take,  touch  me  and 
see  that  I  am  not  a  bodiless  demon.  And  immediately  they 
touched  and  believed,  joined  with  his  flesh  and  his  spirit." 
Serapion,  who  was  ordained  bishop  of  Antioch  about  191,  is 
said  by  Jerome  to  have  written   a  book  about  the  Gospel  of 


THE  AGE  OF  ORIGEN— GOSPEL  OF  PETER  253 

Peter  and  to  have  addressed  it  to  the  church  at  Rhossus  in 
Cilicia,  which  had  turned  aside  to  heresy  by  reading  it  (the 
Gospel  of  Peter).     This  book  was  probably  a  letter. 

Eusebius  quotes  from  it  (H.  E.  6.  12)  as  follows:  "For  we 
brethren  also  receive  Peter  and  the  other  apostles  as  Christ. 
But  the  books  falsely  wTitten  in  their  name,  we  as  experienced 
men  reject,  knowing  that  we  [of  old]  have  not  received  such. 
For  when  I  was  with  you,  I  supposed  that  ye  were  all  united 
in  the  right  faith.  And  without  reading  the  Gospel  produced 
by  them  in  the  name  of  Peter  I  said,  that  if  it  be  this  alone 
that  seems  to  afford  you  modesty  (or  lowliness  of  soul),  let  it 
be  read.  But  now  learning  from  what  has  been  said  to  me 
that  their  mind  has  been  cherishing  a  certain  heresy,  I  shall 
hasten  again  to  be  with  you.  Therefore,  brethren,  look  for 
me  soon.  .  .  .  For  we  were  able  from  others  of  the  ascetics  to 
borrow  this  very  Gospel,  that  is,  from  the  successors  of  those 
who  began  it,  whom  we  call  Docetae  (for  the  most  of  the 
thoughts  are  of  their  teaching),  and  to  read  it.  And  we  found 
that  much  of  it  was  of  the  right  word  of  the  Saviour.  But  some 
[other]  things  were  added,  which  also  we  have  noted  for  you 
below." 

Clement  of  Alexandria  quotes  it  thus  (Strom,  i.  29.  182): 
"  And  in  the  Preaching  of  Peter  thou  wouldst  find  the  Lord 
proclaiming  law  and  word."  Again  he  writes:  "Peter  in  the 
Preaching  says,"  and :  "  Therefore  Peter  says  that  the  Lord 
spoke  to  the  Apostles,"  and  (6.  6.  48) :  "  At  once  in  the  Preach- 
ing of  Peter  the  Lord  says  to  the  disciples  after  the  resurrection," 
and  (6.  15.  128):  "Whence  also  Peter  in  the  Preaching 
speaking  of  the  apostles  says."  He  quotes  a  great  deal  from  it, 
and  clearly  with  great  respect.  Once  he  writes  :  "  Declares  the 
Apostle  Paul  speaking  in  agreement  with  the  preaching  of  Peter," 
but  here  he  may  refer  to  the  preaching  as  by  word  of  mouth. 
Still,  he  is  quoting  the  book  in  the  neighbourhood  of  this  passage, 
so  that  the  reference  to  it  is  more  likely. 

Origen  speaks  of  it  very  differently  and  very  decidedly  in 
the  preface  to  his  work  on  Principles  :  "  If,  moreover,  anyone 
may  wish  to  quote  from  that  book  which  is  called  Peter's 
Teaching,  where  the  Saviour  seems  to  say  to  the  disciples : 
I  am  not  a  bodiless  demon.  In  the  first  place,  it  is  to  be 
answered  to  him  that  that  book  is  not  held  among  the  Church 


254  THE  CANON 

books,  and  to  be  shown  that  the  writing  (scripture)  itself  s 
neither  of  Peter  nor  of  anyone  else  who  was  inspired  with  the 
Spirit  of  God."  In  another  place  (on  Matt.  vol.  lo.  17),  speaking 
of  the  brothers  of  Jesus,  Origen  mentions  it  merely  in  passing  : 
"  Going  out  from  the  basis  of  the  Gospel  entitled  according  to 
Peter  or  of  the  book  of  James,  they  say  that  the  brothers  of 
Jesus  were  sons  of  Joseph  by  a  previous  wife  who  had  lived  with 
him  before  Mary."  Gregory  of  Nazianzus  writes  in  a  letter  (Ep.  i) 
to  his  brother  Caesarius :  "  A  labouring  soul  is  near  God,  says 
Peter,  somewhere  speaking  wonderful  words."  He  does  not  say 
from  what  book  it  is  taken.  The  saying  is  beautiful.  The 
Revelation  of  Peter  is  mentioned  in  the  Muratorian  fragment 
immediately  after  the  Revelation  of  John.  The  writer  adds  of 
the  Revelation  of  Peter:  "Which  some  of  us  do  not  wish 
to  be  read  in  church."  That  shows  that  others  did  wish 
it  to  be  read  in  church.  Eusebius  tells  us  that  Clement  of 
Alexandria  wrote  comments  on  it  in  his  Sketches,  as  well  as  on 
Barnabas. 

Eusebius  himself  placed  it  in  his  list  among  the  spurious 
books,  between  the  Shepherd  and  Barnabas.  In  another  place 
(H.  E.  3.  3)  he  wrote:  "As  for  the  Acts  called  his  [Peter's], 
and  the  Gospel  named  after  him,  and  the  Preaching  said  to  be 
his,  and  the  so-called  Revelation,  we  know  that  they  are  not 
at  all  handed  down  among  the  catholic  [writings],  because  no 
Church  writer,  neither  of  the  ancients  nor  of  those  in  our  day, 
used  proof  passages  from  them."  He  evidently  had  forgotten 
or  overlooked  Clement  of  Alexandria.  Macarius  Magnes,  pro- 
bably from  near  Antioch  and  of  the  middle  of  the  fourth 
century,  gives  (4.  6)  a  quotation  from  the  Revelation  thus  : 
"  And  by  way  of  superfluity  let  that  be  said  which  is  spoken 
in  the  Revelation  of  Peter."  But  he  at  once  proceeds  to  show 
that  he  does  not  in  the  least  agree  with  the  quotation. 

A  spurious  Third  Epistle  of  Paul  to  the  Corinthians  was  long 
preserved,  and  is  now  well  known,  especially  from  the  Armenian 
version  of  it ;  with  it  the  forged  letter  of  the  Corinthians  to  Paul 
is  also  still  in  existence.  An  Epistle  to  the  Laodiceans  is  found 
in  Latin.  The  oldest  copy  known  is  of  about  the  year  546,  in  the 
Vulgate  manuscript  written  for  Victor  the  Bishop  of  Capua,  and 
now  for  centuries  at  Fulda  in  Germany.  It  is  of  no  value,  but 
it  is  found  in  a  number  of  Vulgate  manuscripts. 


THE  AGE  OF  ORIGEN— ACTS   OF   PETER  255 

We  may  leave  these  books  now.  We  have  seen  that  the 
letter  of  Clement  of  Rome  was  much  read,  but  we  have  no 
token  that  it  was  read  as  scripture.  Irenaeus  named  Hermas 
in  that  one  passage  scripture,  and  Clement  of  Alexandria  quoted 
the  Preaching  of  Peter  in  a  most  respectful  way.  That  is  all 
very  little. 


256 


V. 

THE  AGE  OF  EUSEBIUS. 

300-370. 

In  turning  to  a  new  age  our  problem  becomes  still  more  simple. 
We  have  already  disposed  of  the  books  that  are  not  in  our  New 
Testament.  We  only  have  the  two  questions  left,  touching  the 
canonization  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  and  touching 
the  view  held  as  to  the  seven  disputed  books :  James,  2  Peter, 
2  and  3  John,  Jude,  Hebrews,  and  Revelation. 

One  man  must  be  mentioned  at  the  outset  from  whom  we 
should  probably  have  received  much  had  he  lived  to  a  good  age. 
But  he  did  much  for  the  books  of  the  Bible  in  spite  of  his 
shortened  life.  His  name  was  Pamphilus.  He  was  born  at 
what  is  now  called  Beirut  in  Syria,  the  old  Berytus.  He  studied 
at  Alexandria  under  Pierius,  and  became  presbyter  at  Caesarea 
under  the  Bishop  Agapius.  He  died  as  a  martyr  in  the  year  309. 
Eusebius  was  closely  united  to  him,  and  is  called  therefore  the 
Eusebius  of  Pamphilus.  Eusebius  wrote  his  life.  A  fragment 
lately  discovered  has  been  supposed  to  refer  to  a  life  of  him  by 
his  teacher  Pierius,  but  I  am  inclined  to  interpret  the  words  as 
pointing  to  help  given  by  Pierius  to  Eusebius  in  writing  the  life. 
Pamphilus  wrote  with  Eusebius  an  Apology  for  Origen.  His 
great  merit  for  us  lies  in  his  extraordinary  care  for  the  library  at 
Caesarea.  It  is  likely  that  Origen  did  much  to  enlarge  this 
library,  and  it  may  have  contained  his  own  books.  We  still  have 
in  some  Greek  manuscripts  of  the  Bible  notes,  subscriptions, 
telling  that  they  or  their  ancestors  were  compared  with  the 
manuscripts  in  Pamphilus'  library  at  Caesarea,  thus  attributing 
to  the  manuscripts  there  a  certain  normative  value  as  carefully 
written  and  carefully  compared  with  earlier  manuscripts.  In  one 
of  the  older  manuscripts  of  the  Epistles  of  Paul,  which  unfortun- 


THE  AGE  OF  EUSEBIUS— EUSEBIUS  257 

ately  is  but  a  fragment,  we  read :  "  I  wrote  and  set  out  (this 
book)  according  to  the  copy  in  Caesarea  of  the  library  of  the 
holy  Pamphilus."  In  some  manuscripts  is  added:  "written  by 
his  hand,"  showing  that  he  himself  had  shared  in  the  work  of 
writing  biblical  manuscripts.  Such  subscriptions  are  found  not 
only  in  Greek,  but  also  in  Syrian  manuscripts. 

Pamphilus's  friend  Eusebius  is  of  great  weight  for  us.  He 
has  already  shown  his  value  for  the  criticism  of  the  Canon  in  the 
mere  preservation  of  fragments  of  earlier  writers.  To  him  we 
owe  a  large  part  of  our  knowledge  of  the  first  three  centuries  of 
Christianity.  But  the  criticism  of  the  Canon  owes  him  a  special 
debt,  because  much  of  his  Church  History  is  devoted  to  the 
observation  of  the  way  in  which  the  churches  and  the  Christian 
authors  had  used  and  valued  or  not  valued  the  books  of  the 
New  Testament  which  were  of  doubtful  standing,  and  the  other 
books  which  had  secured  for  themselves  a  certain  recognition 
and  were  to  be  found  in  manuscripts  and  in  Church  use  in  the 
immediate  neighbourhood  of  the  acknowledged  books  of  the 
New  Testament.  His  Church  History  was  written  at  a  mature 
age.  He  was  probably  born  between  260  and  265,  was  Bishop 
of  Caesarea  before  315,  and  he  died  probably  in  339  or  340. 
He  wrote  the  history  apparently  in  sections,  and  with  revisions 
between  the  years  305  and  325.  We  must  give  his  statements 
in  full.  They  are  the  chief  discussions  of  the  Canon  in  the 
early  Church. 

In  the  third  book  of  his  Church  History,  Eusebius  tells  first 
where  the  various  apostles  preached,  drawing  from  Origen,  then 
he  mentions  Linus  as  in  charge  of  the  church  at  Rome  after 
the  martyrdom  of  Paul  and  Peter,  and  takes  up  the  Epistles  of 
the  Apostles  (H.  E.  3.  3):  "One  Epistle  then  of  Peter,  the  one 
called  his  former  [Epistle],  is  acknowledged.  And  this  the 
presbyters  of  old  have  used  often  in  their  writings  as  undisputed. 
But  the  second  one  that  is  current  as  his,  we  have  received  not 
to  be  testament-ed  (a  part  of  the  testament,  canonical  we  should 
say  to-day).  Nevertheless,  having  appeared  useful  to  many,  it 
has  been  much  studied  with  the  other  writings  (books,  scriptures). 
But  the  book  of  the  Acts  called  his  and  the  Gospel  named  after 
him,  and  the  so-called  Preaching  and  the  so-called  Revelation, 
we  know  are  not  in  the  least  handed  down  among  the  Catholic 
(books,  or  among  the  Catholic  churches),  because  no  Church 
17 


258  THE  CANON 

writer  either  of  the  ancients  or  of  those  in  our  day  has  used 
proof  passages  from  them.  And  as  the  history  goes  on  I  shall 
make  a  point  of  calling  attention  along  with  the  lines  of  succession 
[of  the  bishops]  to  such  of  the  Church  writers  at  each  period  as 
have  used  which  (any)  of  the  disputed  books,  and  both  to  what 
is  said  by  them  about  the  testament-ed  and  acknowledged 
writings,  and  to  as  many  things  as  are  said  about  those  that  are 
not  such  (are  not  acknowledged).  But  those  named  of  Peter 
are  so  many,  of  which  I  know  only  one  Epistle  as  genuine  and 
acknowledged  by  the  presbyters  of  old.  And  of  Paul  the 
fourteen  [Epistles]  are  open  to  sight  and  clear. 

It  is  not  just  to  ignore  the  fact  that,  however,  some  set  aside 
the  [Epistle]  to  the  Hebrews,  saying  that  it  is  disputed  in  the  church 
of  the  Romans  as  not  being  Paul's.  And  I  shall  chronicle  at  the 
proper  time  what  has  been  said  about  this  by  those  who  were  be- 
fore us.  Nor  have  I  received  the  Acts  said  to  be  his  among  the 
undisputed  [books].  And  since  the  same  apostle  in  the  greetings 
at  the  end  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  makes  mention  with  the 
others  also  of  Hermas,  of  whom  they  say  there  is  the  Book  of 
the  Shepherd,  it  must  be  known  that  this  too  is  disputed  by 
some,  on  account  of  whom  it  could  not  be  placed  among  the 
acknowledged  books,  but  by  others  it  is  judged  to  be  most 
necessary  for  those  who  have  especial  need  of  an  elementary 
introduction  [to  the  faith].  Whence  also  we  know  that  it  is  also 
read  publicly  in  churches,  and  I  have  observed  that  some  of  the 
oldest  writers  have  quoted  it.  So  much  may  be  said  to  give  an 
idea  both  of  the  divine  writings  that  are  not  spoken  against,  and 
of  those  that  are  not  acknowledged  by  all." 

Twenty  chapters  later,  after  bringing  from  Clement  of  Alex- 
andria a  delightful  account  of  John's  reclaiming  a  robber,  he 
again  takes  up  the  question  of  Church  books  by  alluding  to  those 
of  John  (H.  E.  3.  24  and  25) :  "  And  now  also  let  us  make  a  note 
of  the  writings  of  this  apostle  that  are  not  spoken  against.  And 
indeed,  first  of  all  let  the  Gospel  according  to  him  be  acknow- 
ledged by  the  churches  under  Heaven.  That  verily  with  good 
reason  at  the  hands  of  the  ancients  it  was  placed  in  the  fourth 
division  of  the  other  three,  in  this  would  be  clear.  The  divine  and 
truly  godworthy  men,  I  speak  of  the  apostles  of  Christ,  cleansed 
thoroughly  in  their  life,  adorned  with  every  virtue  in  their  souls, 
untaught  in  tongue,  but  full  of  courage  in  the  divine  and  incredible 


THE  AGE  OF   EUSEBIUS— EUSEBIUS  259 

power  bestowed  upon  them  by  the  Saviour,  on  the  one  hand 
neither  knew  how  nor  tried  to  make  known  the  lessons  of  the 
teacher  by  skill  and  by  rhetorical  art,  but  using  alone  that  which 
the  Divine  Spirit  working  with  them  set  forth,  and  the  miracle- 
working  power  of  Christ  brought  to  an  end  through  them,  pro- 
claimed the  knowledge  of  the  Kingdom  of  the  Heavens  to  all 
the  inhabited  world,  giving  little  thought  to  the  study  of  the  way 
in  which  they  should  write  it  down.  And  this  they  did  as  being 
fully  devoted  to  a  service  that  was  very  great  and  beyond  man." 

"  Paul  then,  who  was  the  most  mighty  of  all  in  array  of  words 
and  most  able  in  thoughts,  did  not  put  in  writing  more  than  the 
very  short  letters,  although  he  had  thousands  of  things  and  un- 
speakable to  say,  having  attained  unto  the  visions  as  far  as  the  third 
Heaven  and  having  been  caught  up  in  the  divine  paradise  itself, 
and  been  held  worthy  to  hear  the  unspeakable  words  there.  There- 
fore also  the  remaining  pupils  of  the  Lord  were  not  without  ex- 
perience of  the  same  things,  the  twelve  apostles  and  the  seventy 
disciples  and  ten  thousand  besides  these.  Nevertheless,  then,  out 
of  all  Matthew  and  John  alone  have  left  us  memoirs  (notes)  of 
the  teachings  of  the  Lord,  who  also  are  said  to  have  been  forced 
to  come  to  their  writing.  For  Matthew  having  formerly  preached 
to  Hebrews,  as  he  was  about  to  go  also  to  others,  putting  in 
writing  in  his  mother  tongue  the  Gospel  according  to  him,  filled 
up  by  the  book  the  void  of  his  presence  to  these  from  whom  he 
was  sent.  And  Mark  and  Luke  having  published  (made  the 
edition)  of  the  Gospels  according  to  them,  John  they  say  having 
used  the  whole  time  an  unwritten  preaching,  finally  also  came  to 
the  writing  for  the  following  reason." 

Then  Eusebius  shows  how  the  other  three  had  left  out  the 
due  beginning  of  the  Gospel,  what  Jesus  did  before  John  the 
Baptist  was  cast  into  prison,  and  that  John  had  to  supply  this 
in  his  Gospel.  He  also  tells  how  Luke  had  reached  a  certain 
independence  of  judgment  for  his  Gospel  by  his  intercourse  with 
Paul  and  others.  Eusebius  then  takes  up  John  again  :  "  And  of 
the  writings  of  John,  besides  the  Gospel  also  the  former  of  the 
Epistles  is  acknowledged  as  undisputed  both  by  the  men  of  to-day 
and  by  those  still  ancient.  But  the  other  two  are  disputed.  But 
the  opinion  as  to  the  Revelation  is  still  now  drawn  by  the  most 
toward  each  side  (that  is:  for  and  against).  Nevertheless  this 
also  shall  receive  a  decision  at  a  fit  time  from  the  testimony  of  the 


26o  THE  CANON 

ancients.     Being  at  this  point,  it  is  fitting  that  we  should  sum  up 
the  writings  of  the  New  Testament  that  have  been  mentioned." 

[I]  "  And  we  must  set  first  of  all  the  holy  four  of  the  Gospels, 
which  the  writing  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  follows.  And  after 
this  we  must  name  the  Epistles  of  Paul,  and  in  connection  with 
them  we  must  confirm  the  current  First  Epistle  of  John  and  likewise 
the  Epistle  of  Peter.  In  addition  to  these  is  to  be  placed,  if  that 
appear  perhaps  just,  the  Revelation  of  John,  about  which  we  shall 
in  due  time  set  forth  what  has  been  thought.  And  these  are 
among  the  acknowledged  books." 

[II]  "  And  of  the  disputed  books,  but  known  then  nevertheless 
to  many,  the  Epistle  of  James  is  current  and  that  of  Jude,  and  the 
Second  Epistle  of  Peter  and  the  Second  and  Third  named  for  John, 
whether  they  happen  to  be  of  the  Evangelist  or  of  another  of  the 
same  name  with  him.  Among  the  spurious  [books]  is  the  book  of 
the  Acts  of  Paul  to  be  ranged,  and  the  so-called  Shepherd,  and 
the  Revelation  of  Peter,  and  besides  these  the  current  Epistle  of 
Barnabas  and  the  so-called  Teachings  of  the  Apostles.  And 
further  still,  as  I  said,  the  Revelation  of  John,  if  it  seem  good, 
which  some  as  I  said  set  aside,  and  others  reckon  among  the 
acknowledged  [books].  And  even  among  these  [I  do  not  think 
this  means  among  the  "  acknowledged  "  but  among  the  "  spurious  " 
books],  some  have  counted  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews, 
in  which  especially  the  Hebrews  who  have  received  Christ  take 
pleasure.  And  these  would  then  be  all  of  the  disputed  books 
(Eusebius  here  brings  the  disputed  and  the  spurious  together  as 
"disputed").  But  of  necessity,  nevertheless,  we  have  made  the 
catalogue  of  these,  distinguishing  both  the  writings  that  are  true 
according  to  the  Church  tradition  and  not  forged  and  acknow- 
ledged, and  the  others  aside  from  these,  not  testament ed  but 
also  disputed,  yet  known  by  most  of  the  Church  [officials  ?],  that 
we  may  be  able  to  distinguish  these  very  books,  and  " 

[in]  "those  brought  forward  by  the  heretics  in  the  name  of 
the  aposdes,  containing  either  Gospels,  as  of  Peter  and  Thom.as 
and  Mathias,  or  also  of  some  others  beside  these,  or  Acts,  as  of 
Andrew  and  John  and  the  other  apostles,  which  no  man  of  the 
Church  [writers]  according  to  the  succession  ever  held  worthy  to 
bring  forward  for  memory  in  any  way  in  a  book.  And  further,  in 
a  way  also  the  character  of  the  language  which  is  different  from 
the  apostolic  habit,  and  both  the  opinion  and  the  aim  of  what  is 


THE  AGE  OF   EUSEBIUS— EUSEBIUS  261 

brought  in  them  which  are  as  widely  as  possible  from  agreeing 
with  true  orthodoxy,  clearly  place  before  our  eyes  that  they  are 
forgeries  of  heretical  men.  Hence  they  are  not  even  to  be 
ranged  among  the  spurious  [books],  but  to  be  rejected  as  totally 
absurd  and  impious." 

The  great  question  for  us  here  is  the  precise  opinion  of 
Eusebius  as  to  the  seven  books  for  which  we  are  seeking 
witness.  He  has  them  all  in  his  list.  James  and  Second  Peter, 
and  Second  and  Third  John,  and  Jude  are  all  among  the 
disputed  books,  but  in  the  first  part  of  them,  the  good  part,  and 
not  among  the  spurious  books  of  the  second  part.  Hebrews  is 
squarely  treated  as  one  of  Paul's  Epistles.  The  book  of 
Revelation  is  indeed  put  down  among  the  acknowledged  books, 
but  it  has  a  doubtful  vote  attached  to  it,  and  it,  it  alone  of  all 
the  books,  appears  a  second  time,  and  that  not  in  the  first  but  in 
the  second,  the  spurious  part  of  the  disputed  books. 

As  for  James,  after  telling  of  his  martyrdom  he  continues 
(H.  E.  2.  23) :  "Such  also  is  the  affair  touching  James,  of  whom 
the  first  of  the  Epistles  that  are  named  Catholic  is  said  to  be.  It 
must  be  understood  that  it  is  regarded  as  spurious — not  many 
then  of  the  ancients  mentioned  it,  as  also  not  the  so-called  [Episde] 
of  Jude,  it  also  being  one  of  the  seven  called  Catholic, — yet  we 
know  that  these  also  are  read  publicly  with  the  others  in  very 
many  churches."  There  he  says  that  it  is  regarded  as  spurious, 
which,  however,  is  not  the  case  in  the  list,  which  stands  at  a  later 
point  in  his  history.  If  we  turn  to  his  other  works  we  find  that 
Eusebius  does  not  hesitate  to  quote  James,  caUing  him  "the  holy 
apostle,"  or  the  words  themselves  "scripture."  I  know  of  no 
quotations  from  Second  Peter,  Second  and  Third  John,  and  Jude. 
Hebrews,  as  we  have  seen,  is  fully  accepted,  and  that  as  Paul's,  even 
though  in  one  place  in  speaking  of  Clement  of  Alexandria's  Carpets, 
and  observing  that  he  quotes  from  the  disputed  books,  he  names  as 
such  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  and  that  of  Jesus  Sirach,  Hebrews, 
Barnabas,  Clement  [of  Rome],  and  Jude.  It  is,  by  the  way, 
interesting  that  he  here  calls  Clement  of  Rome  disputed,  although 
he  does  not  give  it  any  place  at  all  in  that  exact  list  which  we 
have  just  read  over. 

As  for  Hebrews  there,  one  might  almost  think  it  was  a 
momentary  slip.  At  any  rate,  Eusebius  quotes  it  often,  and  as 
Paul's  :  "  The  apostle  says,"  "  the  wonderful  aposde."     Paul  had 


262  THE  CANON 

written  it,  Eusebius  thought,  in  Hebrew,  and  perhaps  Luke,  but 
more  likely  Clement  of  Rome  had  translated  it  into  Greek.  The 
book  of  Revelation  evidently  remained  for  him  an  object  of 
suspicion.  The  swaying  hither  and  thither  in  his  list  showed  that 
his  opinion  was  also  "drawn  towards  each  side,"  now  for  now 
against  the  authority  of  this  book.  In  one  place  (H.  E.  3.  39)  he 
writes,  speaking  of  the  report  that  two  graves  of  John  were  said  to 
be  known  at  Ephesus :  "  To  which  it  is  necessary  to  give  heed. 
For  it  is  likely  that  the  second,  unless  anyone  should  wish  the 
first,  saw  the  Revelation  which  is  current  in  the  name  of  John." 
Curious  it  is  that  he  even  thrusts  in  as  a  parenthesis  the  choice 
again  of  the  apostle.  He  really  in  this  case  either  did  not  know 
his  mind  or  had  a  dislike  to  stating  too  bluntly  an  opinion  which 
he  knew  that  many  would  not  like.  The  fact  that  he  quotes  it 
less  frequently  than  might  have  been  expected  looks  as  if  he  were 
not  inclined  personally  to  accept  it,  and  the  same  conclusion 
follows  from  his  form  of  quotation.  We  find  for  it  not  "the 
wonderful  apostle,"  but  merely  "the  Revelation  of  John,"  or 
"  John."  Eusebius  then,  in  the  first  great  list  of  books  that  we 
have,  gives  us  our  New  Testament  of  to-day,  but  with  verbal 
doubts  as  to  the  disputed  book  James  that  are  pretty  much 
invalidated  by  his  quoting  it  as  if  thoroughly  genuine, — with  no 
verbal  or  quoting  lessening  of  the  disputed  character  of  Second 
Peter,  or  of  Second  and  Third  John, — with  a  slight  confirmation 
of  the  disputed  character  of  Jude, — with  a  practical  acceptance 
of  Hebrews  by  most  reverent  quoting  of  it, — and  with  a  hesitat- 
ing use  of  Revelation  which  agrees  better  with  its  being  disputed 
than  with  its  being  genuine,  and  which  agrees  with  the  tentative 
assigning  of  it  to  the  presbyter  instead  of  to  the  Apostle  John. 

The  Council  of  Nice  in  325  does  not  appear  to  have 
determined  anything  about  scripture.  It  is  true  that  Jerome 
states  that  it  "  is  said  to  have  accounted  Judith  in  the  number 
of  the  sacred  scriptures,"  but  he  only  gives  hearsay  for  his 
statement,  and  it  may  have  been  a  misconception  that  led  to  the 
supposition.  During  the  discussions  the  scriptures  served  as 
the  armoury  and  munition  store  for  all  the  members  of  the 
council.  Of  the  seven  disputed  books,  only  Hebrews  seems  to  have 
been  quoted,  and  that  as  Paul's,  in  an  answer  of  the  bishops,  to 
a  philosopher,  by  Eusebius  (Migne,  P.  G.  85.  1276  A) :  "As  says 
also  Paul   the  vessel  of  choice,   writing  to  Hebrews,"  and   he 


THE  AGE  OF  EUSEBIUS— EUSEBIUS  263 

quotes  Hebrews  4^--  ^^.  Hebrews  is  quoted  not  rarely  in  the  Acts 
of  this  council.  The  only  other  reference  that  might  touch  the 
disputed  books  is  the  naming  of  the  "  Catholics,"  meaning  the 
Catholic  Epistles:  "And  in  the  Catholics  John  the  evangelist 
cries,"  and  Leontius,  the  bishop  of  Caesarea  in  Cappadocia,  who 
is  speaking,  quotes  (MPG  85.  1285)  i  John  5^.  A  chapter  or 
two  later  (MPG  85.  1297  C)  he  writes:  "For  he  who  has  not 
the  Son,  as  it  says  in  the  Catholics,  neither  hath  he  the 
Father."  That  is  a  very  loose  way  of  rendering :  "  Every  one 
who  denieth  the  Son,  neither  hath  he  the  Father,"  i  John  2^^. 
But  this  reference  to  the  "  Catholics  "  does  not  at  all  say  surely 
that  all  seven  Catholic  Epistles  are  in  the  collection.  It  is  quite 
likely  that  they  are  all  in  Leontius'  hand  and  heart.  Nevertheless 
it  would  be  possible  for  a  man  to  speak  in  this  way  who  only 
had  two  Catholic  Epistles,  First  Peter  and  First  John.  Moreover, 
at  a  time  at  which  the  opinions  about  these  seven  books  were 
still  somewhat  uncertain,  it  would  be  perfectly  possible  for  some 
one  member  of  the  council  to  quote  a  book  that  some  other 
members  would  not  have  quoted,  just  as  one  might  of  set  purpose 
not  quote  a  book  that  others  would  have  quoted.  But  the 
council,  as  far  as  w^e  can  see,  did  not  think  of  settling  what  books 
belonged  to  the  New  Testament  and  what  did  not.  It  had  other 
work  to  do. 

A  few  years  later  Constantine  the  emperor  commanded 
Eusebius  to  have  fifty  Bibles  copied  for  him,  of  which  we  shall 
speak  when  we  come  to  the  Criticism  of  the  Text.  He  had  not 
probably  any  thought  of  a  canonical  determination  of  a  series 
of  books.  He  merely  wished  to  have  some  handsome  and 
appropriate  presents  for  a  few  large  churches.  We  have  to-day 
parts  of  two  manuscripts  of  the  Bible  that  may  perhaps  have  been 
among  those  fifty.  However  that  may  be,  they  were  probably 
written  about  that  time.  One  of  them  is  the  Codex  Sinaiticus, 
of  which  the  New  Testament  part  is  at  Saint  Petersburg,  although 
forty-three  leaves  out  of  it,  containing  fragments  of  the  Old 
Testament,  are  at  Leipzig.  This  manuscript  contains  the  four 
Gospels,  fourteen  Epistles  of  Paul — because  Hebrews  is  placed  as 
a  Pauline  Epistle  between  Thessalonians  and  Timothy, — the  book 
of  Acts,  the  seven  Catholic  Epistles,  Revelation,  Barnabas,  and  a 
fragment  of  the  Shepherd.  Therefore  we  find  in  it  all  the  books 
of  our  New  Testament,  and  in  addition  Barnabas  and  Hermas. 


264  THE  CANON 

It  is  even  not  impossible  that  some  other  books  were  originally 
in  it  after  Hermas.  As  observed  above,  Barnabas  would  probably 
have  been  placed  before  Revelation  had  the  one  who  caused  it 
to  be  copied  intended  to  have  it  regarded  as  a  part  of  the  New 
Testament.  And  Hermas,  although  of  a  somewhat  dreamy, 
apocalyptic  nature,  would  probably  also  have  been  placed  before 
Revelation.  I  suppose  that  these  two  books  were  added  because 
they  were  often  read  in  church  as  from  :  "  Man  to  Man,"  and 
because  it  was  convenient  to  have  them  thus  at  hand.  We  must 
return  to  this  under  Text.  The  other  manuscript  is  the  Vatican 
manuscript  at  Rome.  It  contains  in  the  New  Testament  the 
four  Gospels,  the  book  of  Acts,  the  seven  Catholic  Epistles,  the 
Pauline  Epistles  as  far  as  Thessalonians,  and  Hebrews  to  9^*, 
where  it  unfortunately  breaks  off.  Of  course,  it  originally  had 
the  pastoral  Epistles  after  Hebrews,  and  it  doubtless  contained 
also  Revelation.  Whether  other  books  were  in  it  or  not  we 
cannot  tell. 

Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  who  was  born  in  315  and  died  in  the 
year  386,  probably  wrote  his  Catechetical  Lectures  about  the 
year  346.  In  them  he  naturally  enough  speaks  of  the  divine 
scriptures.  The  passage  (4.  33-36)  shows  us  at  the  same  time 
how  he  treated  his  hearers  and  readers,  what  tone  he  struck  in 
trying  to  fit  their  ears :  "  Learn  then  with  love  of  wisdom  also 
from  the  Church  what  are  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  and 
what  of  the  New.  The  apostles  and  the  ancient  bishops  were 
much  more  prudent  and  better  filled  with  foresight  than  the  leaders 
of  the  Church  who  handed  these  scriptures  down  to  us.  Thou 
then,  child,  do  not  treat  falsely  the  determinations  of  the  Church. 
And  of  the  Old  Testament,  as  is  said,  study  the  twenty-two  books, 
which  if  thou  are  diligent  to  learn  hasten  to  store  up  in  memory 
as  I  name  them  to  you."  Then  he  gives  the  books  of  the  Old 
Testament.  "And  of  the  New  Testament  the  four  Gospels 
alone.  And  the  rest  are  forged  and  hurtful.  The  Manichasans 
also  wrote  a  Gospel  according  to  Thomas  which  by  the  fine  sound 
of  the  gospel  name  attached  to  it  corrupts  the  souls  of  the  more 
simple.  And  receive  also  the  Acts  of  the  Twelve  Apostles. 
And  in  addition  to  these  also  the  seven  Catholic  Epistles  of 
James  and  Peter,  John  and  Jude.  And  the  seal  upon  all, 
and  the  last  thing  of  disciples  the  fourteen  Epistles  of  Paul. 
And   the   rest   let    them   all   lie   in    a   second   place.     And  as 


THE   AGE  OF   EUSEBIUS— CYRIL  OF  JERUSALEM  265 

many  as  are  not  read  in  churches,  these  neither  read  thou  by 
thyself  as  thou  hast  heard."  The  books  that  are  not  part  of  the 
New  Testament,  but  which  may  be  read,  are  not  named.  The 
book  of  Revelation  is  not  one  of  the  books  of  the  New 
Testament.  That  is  the  state  of  things  at  Jerusalem  just  before 
the  middle  of  the  fourth  century. 

Up  to  this  time,  that  is  to  say  until  well  into  the  fourth 
century,  we  have  found  no  signs  of  a  determination  of  a  list  of 
the  books  of  the  New  Testament  by  any  gathering  of  Christians. 
Marcion  did  make  a  list.  But  he  was  a  single  person  and  a 
heretic.  The  nearest  that  we  have  come  to  it  was  Tertullian's 
declaration  that  every  council  of  the  churches  had  judged  the 
Shepherd  to  be  among  the  apocryphal  and  false  books.  That 
looks  as  if  these  councils  must  have,  or  at  least  might  have,  at 
the  same  time  made  a  definite  statement  as  to  what  was  not 
apocryphal  and  false,  but  in  fact  authoritative,  public,  and 
genuine.  But  this  conclusion  is  by  no  means  necessary.  For 
the  condemnation  of  the  Shepherd  may  well  have  been  uttered 
in  connection  with  special  doctrinal  or  disciplinary  determinations, 
and  have  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  question  of  what  books 
belonged  in  general  to  the  New  Testament.  At  the  first  glance 
it  looks  as  if  we  were  now  to  have  at  last  a  decision  of  a  council. 
The  council  of  apparently  the  year  363  held  at  Laodicea  in 
Phrygia  Pacatania,  is  sometimes  urged  as  the  first  council  that 
made  a  list,  published  a  list,  of  the  books  which  properly  belong 
to  the  New  Testament. 

The  name  Council  of  Laodicea  sounds  very  well,  and  the 
untutored  reader  might  imagine  to  himself  an  imposing  array 
of  bishops,  perhaps  as  many  as  the  three  hundred  and  eighteen 
of  the  Council  of  Nice.  Far  from  it.  There  were,  we  are 
told,  only  thirty-two  members  of  this  council,  and  another 
reading  says  only  twenty-four.  It  can  only  have  been  a  local 
gathering,  and  in  spite  of  the  authority  of  the  bishops  in  the 
fourth  century  I  should  not  be  surprised  if  among  the  thirty-two 
there  had  been  some  presbyters.  It  would  seem  likely  that  this 
little  council  or  synod  was  summoned  to  meet  by  a  bishop  of 
Philadelphia  named  Theodosius,  and  that  Theodosius  had  the 
most  to  do  with  the  determining  the  canons  of  the  council.  He 
called  the  council  then,  and  swayed  it.  He  is  said  to  have  been 
an  Arian,  but  that  was  of  no  particular  moment  for  the  Questions 


266  THE  CANON 

of  order  which  were  laid,  and  of  course  laid  by  him,  before  the 
synod  for  decision. 

The  canon  which  interests  us  is  the  very  last  one,  the 
fifty-ninth.  It  begins  thus :  "  That  psalms  written  by  private 
persons  must  not  be  read  in  the  church,  nor  uncanonized 
books,  but  only  the  canonized  ones  of  the  New  and  Old 
Testament."  Thus  far  the  canon  is  found  in  all  accounts  of  the 
council  with  but  trifling  variations.  Of  course,  the  "  reading  "  of 
a  psalm  might  be  the  "singing"  of  the  psalm.  Such  psalms  are 
not  to  be  uttered  in  church.  That  is  a  decision  akin  to  the  old- 
time  rules  of  some  Presbyterian  Churches  that  nothing  but  the 
psalms  of  the  Old  Testament  should  be  sung  in  church.  The 
words  uncanonized  and  canonized  as  applied  to  books  remind  us 
of  the  word  "  testament-ed  "  that  we  have  already  sometimes  met. 
Now  thus  far  we  have  no  list  of  the  books.  But  in  some  sources 
for  this  canon  it  goes  on :  "  How  many  books  are  to  be  read : 
of  Old  Testament :  i.  Genesis  of  world.  2.  Exodus  from  Egypt. 
3.  Leviticus.  4.  Numbers.  5.  Deuteronomy.  6.  Jesus  of  Nave. 
7.  Judges,  Ruth.  8.  Esther.  9.  First  and  Second  Kings.  10. 
Third  and  Fourth  of  Kings.  11.  Chronicles,  First  and  Second. 
12.  Ezra,  First  and  Second.  13.  Book  of  hundred  and  fifty 
Psalms.  14.  Proverbs  of  Solomon.  15.  Ecclesiastes.  16.  Song 
of  Songs.  17.  Job.  18.  Twelve  Prophets.  19.  Isaiah.  20. 
Jeremiah  and  Baruch,  Lamentations  and  Epistles.  21.  Ezekiel. 
22.  Daniel.  And  those  of  the  New  Testament :  Gospels  four: 
according  to  Matthew,  according  to  Mark,  according  to  Luke, 
according  to  John.  Acts  of  Apostles.  Catholic  Epistles  seven, 
thus :  of  James  one ;  of  Peter,  First,  Second ;  of  John,  First 
Second,  Third ;  of  Jude  one.  Epistles  of  Paul  fourteen :  to 
Romans  one ;  to  Corinthians,  First,  Second ;  to  Galatians  one ; 
to  Ephesians  one ;  to  Philippians  one ;  to  Colossians  one ;  to 
Thessalonians,  First,  Second  ;  to  Hebrews  one ;  to  Timothy,  First, 
Second ;  to  Titus  one,  to  Philemon  one." 

There  we  have  a  fair  catalogue.  All  of  the  books  of  our  New 
Testament  are  in  it  save  Revelation.  If  the  Synod  of  Laodicea, 
the  thirty-two  men,  settled  upon  that  list,  it  wpuld  be  no  great 
thing,  but  it  would  be  a  little  beginning  of  a  fixed,  a  settled,  a 
decreed  Canon.  Unfortunately,  when  we  examine  the  various 
sources  we  must  decide  that  this  list  was  not  a  part  of  the  canon 
of  I^aodicea.    It  was  not  very  strange  that  the  list  should  be  added. 


THE  AGE  OF  EUSEBIUS— LAODICEA,  ATIIANASIUS       267 

This  was  the  last  canon.  We  might  almost  suppose  that  the  man 
who  first  added  the  books  did  not  dream  of  really  making  his 
catalogue  a  part  of  the  fifty-ninth  canon.  He  may  have  said  to 
himself,  considering  the  canon :  "  What  must  we  read  then  ? 
Let  me  see.  In  the  Old  Testament  there  are  these.  In  the 
New  Testament  these."  And  writing  them  down  there,  the  next 
scribe  who  came  to  copy  a  manuscript  from  that  one,  again 
thought  no  harm,  thought  innocently  enough  that  all  that  really 
belonged  to  the  fifty-ninth  canon,  and  copied  it  accordingly.  We 
are  therefore  still  without  a  canon  approved  by  a  synod  or  a  council. 
But  we  can  have  almost  at  once  a  proclamation  of  a  list  that 
is  so  very  public,  so  very  authoritative  that  it  rnay  for  the  time 
replace  a  synod  which  we  cannot  yet  get. 

It  was  the  habit  of  the  Bishop  of  Alexandria  to  announce 
the  day  on  which  Easter  would  fall  by  an  Epistle.  In  the  year 
367,  as  it  appears,  Athanasius  of  Alexandria  wrote  his  39th 
Festal  Epistle,  and  gave  a  list  of  the  books  of  the  Bible. 
"  But  since  we  have  referred  to  the  heretics  as  dead,  and  to  us  as 
having  the  divine  scriptures  unto  salvation,  and  as  I  fear,  as 
Paul  wrote  to  the  Corinthians,  lest  some  few  of  the  simp'e 
may  be  led  astray  by  deceit  from  simplicity  and  purity  by 
the  wiles  of  men,  and  finally  may  begin  to  read  the  so-called 
apocrypha,  deceived  by  the  likeness  of  the  names  to  those  of 
the  true  books,  I  beg  you  to  have  patience  if  in  alluding  to 
these  things  I  write  also  about  things  that  you  understand,  be- 
cause of  necessity  and  of  what  is  useful  for  the  Church.  And 
now  about  to  recall  these" — the  scriptures — "I  shall  use  as  a 
prop  for  my  boldness  the  example  (another  reading  is :  the 
passage,  the  verse)  of  the  evangelist  Luke,  saying  also  myself: 
Since  some  have  turned  their  hand  to  draw  up  for  themselves 
the  so-called  apocrypha,  and  to  mingle  these  with  the  inspired 
writ,  concerning  which  we  are  informed  fully,  as  those  handed  it 
down  to  the  fathers  who  were  from  the  beginning  directly  seers 
and  servants  of  the  word,  it  seemed  good  also  to  me,  urged  by 
true  brethren,  and  having  learned  from  time  gone  by,  to  set  forth 
in  order  from  the  first  the  books  that  are  canonized  and  handed 
down  and  believed  to  be  divine,  so  that  each,  if  he  has  been 
deceived,  may  detect  those  who  have  misled  him,  and  the  one 
remaining  pure  may  rejoice  at  being  put  in  mind  of  it  again.  So 
then  the  books  of  the  Old   Testament  are  in  number  all  told 


268  THE  CANON 

twenty-two.  For  so  many,  as  I  heard,  it  is  handed  down  that 
there  are  letters,  those  among  the  Hebrews.  And  in  order  and 
by  name  each  is  thus  :  first  Genesis,  then  Exodus,  then  Leviticus, 
and  after  this,  Numbers,  and  finally,  Deuteronomy.  And  follow- 
ing on  these  is  Jesus,  the  son  of  Nave  and  Judges,  and  after  this 
Ruth,  and  again  following  four  books  of  Kings,  and  of  these  the 
first  and  second  are  counted  in  one  book  and  the  second  and 
third  likewise  in  one,  and  after  these  First  and  Second  Chronicles, 
likewise  counted  in  one  book,  then  First  and  Second  Ezra,  likewise 
in  one,  and  after  these  the  book  of  Psalms  and  following  Proverbs, 
then  Ecclesiastes  and  Song  of  Songs.  In  addition  to  these  is 
also  Job  and  finally  Prophets,  the  Twelve  counted  in  one  book. 
Then  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  and  with  him  Baruch,  Lamentations, 
Epistle,  and  after  him  Ezekiel,  and  Daniel.  As  far  as  these 
stand  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament." 

"And  those  of  the  New  we  must  not  hesitate  to  say.  For 
they  are  these :  Four  Gospels,  according  to  Matthew,  accord- 
ing to  Mark,  according  to  Luke,  according  to  John.  Then 
after  these  Acts  of  Apostles  and  so-called  Catholic  Epistles 
of  the  apostles  seven  thus :  Of  James  one,  but  of  Peter  two, 
then  of  John  three,  and  after  these  of  Jude  one.  In  addition 
to  these  there  are  of  Paul  fourteen  Epistles,  in  the  order  written 
thus  :  first  to  the  Romans,  then  to  the  Corinthians  two,  then  also 
after  these  to  the  Galatians,  and  following  to  the  Ephesians,  then 
to  the  Philippians,  and  to  the  Colossians,  and  to  the  Thes- 
salonians  two.  And  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  and  following 
to  Timothy  two,  and  to  Titus  one.  And  again  John's  Revela- 
tion. These  are  the  wells  of  salvation,  so  that  he  who  thirsts 
may  be  satisfied  with  the  sayings  in  these.  In  these  alone  is  the 
teaching  of  godliness  heralded.  Let  no  one  add  to  these.  Let 
nothing  be  taken  away  from  these.  And  about  these  the  Lord 
shamed  the  Sadducees,  saying :  Ye  err,  not  knowing  the  scrip- 
tures or  their  powers.  And  he  admonished  the  Jews :  Search 
the  scriptures,  for  it  is  they  that  testify  of  Me.  But  for  greater 
exactness  I  add  also  the  following,  writing  of  necessity,  that 
there  are  also  other  books  besides  these,  not  canonized,  yet 
set  by  the  Fathers  to  be  read  to  (or  by)  those  who  have  just 
come  up  and  who  wish  to  be  informed  as  to  the  word  of 
godliness :  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  and  the  Wisdom  of  Sirach, 
and  Esther,  and  Judith,  and  Tobit,  and  the  so-called  Teaching 


THE  AGE  OF  EUSEBIUS— ATHANASIUS  269 

of  the  Apostles,  and  the  Shepherd.  And  nevertheless,  beloved, 
those  that  are  canonized  and  these  that  are  to  be  read  [are 
recommended  to  us,  but]  there  is  nowhere  any  mention  of  the 
apocryphal  books.  But  they  are  an  invention  of  heretics,  writing 
them  when  they  please,  and  adding  grace  to  them  and  adding 
years  to  them,  so  that  bringing  them  out  as  old  books  they  may 
have  a  means  of  deceiving  the  simple  by  them." 

The  point  of  Athanasius'  recounting  the  books  of  the  Bible 
is  seen  at  the  beginning  and  at  the  end.  He  is  not  in  any 
way  trying  to  block  off  what  Eusebius  had  published  in  his 
Church  History.  He  has  the  heretics  and  their  writings  in  view 
who  concocted  these  books,  as  Athanasius  thinks,  to  catch  the 
souls  of  simple  Christians.  The  word  "  simple  "  is  one  of  those 
nice  words  which  in  debate  can  always  be  applied  to  the  people 
who  do  not  think  as  you  do.  Tertullian  w^as  not  a  simple  man, 
an  unlearned  man  easily  to  be  led  astray  by  any  chance  wind  of 
doctrine,  but  he  became  a  heretic.  And  what  shall  we  say  of 
the  great  Origen  ?  But  no  matter.  Athanasius  wishes  to  protect 
the  simple  from  the  snares  of  the  heretics.  The  heretics  write 
apocryphal  books.  He  tells  us  what  is  "inspired  scripture." 
With  this  list  in  his  hand  the  simple  man  can  at  once  settle 
the  dispute  with  the  heretic  in  favour  of  orthodoxy.  We  find 
in  the  list  our  whole  New  Testament. 

The  notable  advance  upon  Eusebius  is,  that  now  not  a 
single  one  of  these  books  remains  as  a  disputed  book.  They 
are  all  on  one  level.  Now  that  may  be  merely  the  Alex- 
andrian view  of  the  case.  In  Caesarea  doubts  may  still  prevail, 
or  in  other  churches.  But  for  Alexandria  the  case  is  clear. 
Clear  as  a  bell  is  it  also  that  Athanasius  does  not  lay  claim 
to  a  decision  of  any  general  council  for  the  canonizing  of 
these  books.  It  would  be  possible,  but  it  would  not  be  likely, 
that  he  should  know  of  the  decision  of  some  small  council  in 
favour  of  his  books,  of  the  books  which  he  regarded  as  the  true 
ones,  and  yet  not  mention  it.  This  consideration  makes  it  all 
the  less  likely  that  the  Council  of  Laodicea  had  four  years  earlier 
put  forth  the  list  that  we  looked  at  a  few  moments  ago.  Athanasius 
accepts  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  as  Paul's.  It  seems  almost 
curious  that  a  great  bishop  should  for  the  moment  leave  the 
preaching,  the  proclamation  of  the  Gospel  by  word  of  mouth,  the 
living  and  breathing  side  of  Christianity,  so  far  out  of  sight.     It  is 


270  THE  CANON 

the  heretics  that  force  him  to  it.  Do  the  orthodox  preach,  so  do 
the  heretics.  But  these  divine  books,  they  are  something  that 
heresy  cannot  touch.  Their  imitation  scriptures  are  of  no  avail. 
These  now  called  canonized  books  are  the  wells  of  salvation. 
And  now  the  process  of  choosing  books  has  come  to  an  end. 

Perhaps  Athanasius  thinks  of  the  words  at  the  close  of  the 
Revelation.  He  knows  that  the  New  Testament  is  full  and 
complete.  No  one  may  add  anything  to  these  books.  Nothing 
is  to  be  taken  away  from  them.  And  then  he  proceeds  to  add 
something  to  them,  but  on  a  lower  plane  as  second-class  books. 
Look  at  them  :  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  the  Wisdom  of  Sirach — 
which  is  by  the  way  an  exceedingly  worthy  book — Esther,  Judith, 
Tobit,  the  Teaching  of  the  Apostles— which  may  be  one  of  two 
or  three  different  books — and  the  beautiful  dreams  of  the 
Shepherd  of  Hermas.  Strange,  however,  it  is  that  a  bishop 
should  say  that  this  medley  of  books  :  Esther,  Judith,  Tobit 
among  them,  should  be  especially  commended  to  be  read  to  or 
by  the  new-comers.  One  would  think  that  the  new  Christians 
would  need  before  all  others  the  pure  milk  of  the  word.  Yet  this 
part  of  the  letter  of  Athanasius  has  a  moral  for  us  touching  the 
earlier  times.  Just  such  a  statement  as  to  second  class  books, 
reaching  back  as  far  as  Sirach,  justifies  my  contention  that  the 
Christians,  like  the  Jews,  have  been  reading  all  along  in  church, 
as  in  the  synagogue,  books  that  were  :  Man  to  Man,  not :  God  to 
Man. 

What  books  have  now  fallen  away  as  compared  with 
Eusebius  ?  Turning  to  the  spurious  books  of  Eusebius,  we  miss 
the  Acts  of  Paul,  the  Revelation  of  Peter  and  Barnabas.  The 
letter  of  Clement,  a  letter  scarcely  inferior  to  some  of  the  Epistles 
of  the  New  Testament,  and  fully  equal  to,  or  rather  far  above,  the 
Shepherd  has  fallen  on  all  hands  completely  out  of  sight.  How 
is  it  that  Athanasius  has  reached  this  point?  Has  there  been 
since  Eusebius,  and  before  Athanasius,  any  great  discovery  made 
of  new  sources  from  the  first  or  second  century  throwing  a  flood 
of  light  upon  the  whole  literature  of  the  Christians,  and  enabling 
Athanasius  to  say  that  all  the  Catholic  Epistles  are  genuine,  and 
that  Revelation  is  genuine,  and  that  the  other  books  are  very  bad 
indeed  ?  Not  at  all.  It  is  even  quite  possible  that  Athanasius 
would  have  written  just  thus  if  he  had  published  this  letter  in  the 
same  year  in  which  Eusebius  published  his  Church  History — 


THE  AGE  OF   EUSEBIUS— ATHANASIUS  27 1 

only  that  he  was  not  then  bishop.  Alexandria  was  not  far  from 
Caesarea,  and  had  been  of  old  tied  to  it  by  many  a  bond.  But 
there  had  also  been  fierce  battles  between  the  two  places,  and 
Alexandria  had  its  own  opinions,  both  in  doctrine  and  in  letters. 
Nor  must  we  forget  that  Alexandria,  even  through  and  in  those 
battles,  had  itself  changed.  That  shows  itself  in  Athanasius's  list 
in  the  total  omission  of  Barnabas,  which  had  once  been  so  much 
liked  at  Alexandria. 

Twenty  years  ago  Theodor  Mommsen  found  a  singular  canon 
in  a  Latin  manuscript  of  the  tenth  century.  It  probably  belongs 
to  an  earlier  date  than  Athanasius,  but  I  let  it  stand  here  by 
way  of  comparison.  It  appears  to  be  from  Africa.  In  the  Old 
Testament  it  counts  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon  and  the  Wisdom  of 
Sirach  among  the  books  of  Solomon,  and  it  has  Esther,  Judith, 
and  Tobit,  so  that  in  that  far  it  has  a  likeness  to  our  Athanasius 
list,  though  the  latter  put  those  books  in  an  appendix.  It  differs 
from  Athanasius  in  adding  Maccabees.  In  the  New  Testament 
it  goes  its  own  way,  and  an  odd  way  it  is.  Hebrews  is  altogether 
lacking.  Paul's  Epistles  number  only  thirteen.  But  the  Catholic 
Epistles  appear  in  the  following  form,  save  that  I  omit  the 
number  of  the  lines  :  the  three  Epistles  of  John,  one  only,  the  two 
Epistles  of  Peter,  one  only.  Those  are  in  the  manuscript  in  four 
lines,  in  a  column,  divided  by  commas  here.  What  does  it 
mean?  Of  course,  if  we  were  positively  determined  to  get  from 
this  catalogue  the  seven  usual  Catholic  Epistles  we  should  say 
that  James  was  meant  by  the  "  one  only  "  after  John,  and  Jude 
by  the  "one  only"  after  Peter.  That  would  indeed  be  an 
extremely  mild  way  of  putting  the  scriptural  character  of  James 
and  Jude  before  a  reader.  No  other  instance  like  it  occurs  in 
the   list. 

The  words  look  like  the  expression  of  two  opinions  in 
the  list,  for  it  is  totally  impossible  to  imagine  that  the  scribe 
copying  the  list  found  a  double  mutilation,  one  for  James  and 
one  for  Jude,  each  before  "one  only"  and  each  without  the 
number  of  verses  after  "one  only,"  and  that  he  had  no  idea 
of  what  two  Epistles  might  belong  there,  and  therefore  left  them 
nameless.  So  ignorant  a  scribe  among  Christians  is  not  to  be 
thought  of  The  scribe  may  have  found  the  names  of  James 
and  Jude  in  the  list,  seeing  that  three  Epistles  of  John  and  two 
of  Peter  are  there.     But  if  he  found  them  there  he  left  them  out 


272  THE  CANON 

because  he  did  not  think  they  belonged  there.  He  found  then 
three  Epistles  of  John,  with  the  number  of  verses  in  them.  He 
did  not,  however,  believe  at  all  that  there  should  be  three  Epistles 
of  John.  He  thought  that  only  First  John  was  scripture.  Why 
did  he  then  write  "three  Epistles,"  why  did  he  not  write  "one 
Epistle  "  and  be  done  with  it  ?  The  reason  lay  in  the  number  of 
the  verses.  He  had  the  number  for  the  three  Epistles  together, 
and  he  could  not  tell  precisely  how  many  were  to  be  subtracted 
if  he  left  out  Second  and  Third  John.  Therefore  he  wrote  the 
three  Epistles  of  John,  and  added  the  number  of  the  lines.  But 
in  order  to  save  his  conscience  from  the  stain  of  calling  Second 
and  Third  John  biblical  he  added  "one  only."  The  case  was 
then  probably  the  same  with  the  two  Epistles  of  Peter.  He  only 
acknowledged  First  Peter,  and  could  not  separate  its  lines  or 
verses  from  those  of  Second  Peter.  And  thus  he  again  wrote 
two  Epistles  of  Peter  with  their  verses,  and  doggedly  added  there 
below :  "  one  only."  We  do  not  know,  but  it  looks  like  that. 
Now  we  see  in  what  way  this  list  has  a  certain  claim  to  a  place 
at  this  point.  It  appears  to  give  us  a  glimpse  of  a  little  skirmish 
in  the  war  of  canonical  opinions.  The  scribe  had,  it  seems, 
before  him  a  manuscript  which  even  may  have  had  Hebrews  in 
it  as  a  fourteenth  Epistle  of  Paul,  but  which  at  anyrate  had  three 
Epistles  for  John  and  two  for  Peter,  and  therefore  probably 
James  and  Jude  as  well.  He  is  himself  one  of  the  strict  old 
school,  and,  if  there  were  fourteen  Epistles  for  Paul  before  him, 
he  took  his  pen  and  wrote  thirteen,  he  dropped  James  and  Jude, 
and  he  only  granted  John  and  Peter  one  Epistle  each. 

What  will  the  future  bring?  Will  Eusebius'  full  list  and 
that  of  Athanasius  now  have  full  sway  ?  Will  a  general  council 
settle  the  books  of  scripture  ?  Will  all  doubt  and  all  difference 
cease  ? 


273 


VI. 

THE  AGE  OF  THEODORE  OF  MOPSUESTIA. 

370-700. 

The  circle  seems  to  be  closing.  We  have  a  pair  of  full  catalogues 
of  the  New  Testament  books  in  our  hands,  one  with  a  few  doubts 
clinging  to  it,  one  quite  definite  and  sure.  Now  we  must  advance 
through  the  years  and  ask  what  the  writers  and  what  the  Churches 
do  in  this  matter.  Whether  they  accept  the  full  lists  or  whether 
they  demur ;  we  must  have  their  vote,  if  we  can  find  out  what  it  is. 
And  we  must  look  for  a  decision  of  a  general  council,  settling 
the  matter  for  all  Christendom. 

Divisions  overlap.  We  cannot  cut  up  the  lives  of  the  authors 
according  to  our  divisions,  arbitrary  divisions.  The  first  writer 
whom  we  have  to  take  up  is  Gregory  of  Nazianzus.  The  son 
of  a  Bishop  Gregory  of  Nazianzus,  he  studied  at  Caesarea  in 
Cappadocia,  at  Caesarea  in  Palestine,  at  Alexandria,  perhaps  ten 
years  at  Athens,  was  once  for  an  instant  Bishop  of  Sasima,  and 
again  for  an  instant  Bishop  of  Constantinople  as  elected  by  the 
general  council  of  the  year  381,  and  died  in  389  or  390,  having 
been  one  of  the  very  first  rank  as  a  Christian  poet,  orator,  and 
theologian.  His  opinion  of  scripture  he  uttered  in  a  poem 
(i.  I.  12).  After  the  Old  Testament  he  goes  on :  "And  now  count 
[the  books]  of  the  New  Mystery.  Matthew  wrote  to  the  Hebrews 
the  wonders  of  Christ,  and  Mark  to  Italy,  Luke  to  Greece,  but 
to  all  John,  a  great  herald,  walking  in  heaven.  Then  the  Acts 
of  the  wise  apostles.  And  ten  of  Paul,  and  also  four  Epistles. 
And  seven  Catholic,  of  which  of  James  one,  and  two  of  Peter, 
and  three  of  John  again,  and  Jude's  is  the  seventh.  Thou  hast 
all.  And  if  there  is  anything  outside  of  these,  it  is  not  among 
the  genuine  [books].  That  recalls  to  us  the  list  by  Cyril  of 
Jerusalem.  All  our  books  are  there  again,  save  the  Revelation. 
18 


374  THE  CANON 

Gregory  may  stand  for  Asia  Minor,  but  we  see  how  wide  a  basis 
he  had  in  the  long  years  of  study  in  such  widely  separated  cities. 
If  we  turn  to  his  writings  there  appear  to  be  no  references  to 
Second  Peter,  Second  and  Third  John,  and  Jude,  but  he  refers 
four  times  to  James,  eight  or  nine  times  to  First  Peter,  and  twice 
to  First  John.  First  John  he  names  (Log.  31.  19) :  "What  now 
John  saying  in  the  Catholics  [the  Catholic  Epistles]  that :  Three 
are  those  who  bear  witness,  the  spirit,  the  water,  the  blood."  In 
a  dozen  places  Gregory  quotes  Old  Testament  passages  which 
are  given  in  the  Epistle  of  James  and  in  First  Peter,  and  he  pro- 
bably quotes  them  because  they  are  familiar  to  him  from  these 
Epistles,  yet  I  let  them  pass,  in  order  not  to  appear  to  press 
the  matter  unduly.  First  Peter  2^  would  have  to  be  named 
seven  times.  First  Peter  and  First  John  are  also  named  here 
because  it  has  been  supposed  that  Gregory  did  not  use  them. 
He  refers  very  often  to  Hebrews.  The  Revelation  he  quotes 
once,  and  in  another  place  he  may  have  taken  an  Old  Testa- 
ment quotation  from  it.  In  one  place  he  names  it  thus  (Log. 
42.  9):  "As  John  teaches  me  by  the  Revelation."  We  see 
then  that  in  general  Gregory's  quotations  may  be  brought  into 
harmony  with  his  list,  for  it  is  not  at  all  strange  that  he  should 
not  happen  to  refer  to  Second  and  Third  John,  and  not  very 
strange  that  he  should  have  passed  by  Second  Peter  and  its  mate 
Jude.  Before  leaving  Gregory  of  Nazianzus  it  should  be  observed 
that  his  poems  fill  a  large  part  of  his  works,  and  that  these  are 
not  adapted  to  quotations. 

The  great  friend  of  Gregory  of  Nazianzus  was  Basil  the  Great, 
the  Bishop  of  Caesarea  in  Cappadocia.  We  might  look  for  a 
precisely  identical  use  of  scripture  from  these  two.  Certainly  one 
of  them  will  often  have  used  the  books  belonging  to  the  other. 
As  for  the  seven  books  that  were  formerly  disputed,  Basil  quotes 
James  twice,  and  Second  Peter  once,  and  the  Revelation  twice ; 
of  the  two  times,  he  once  points  to  it  as  John's  (To  Eunom.  2.  14) : 
"  But  the  evangelist  himself  in  another  book  (or  another  '  word ') 
of  such  a  kind,  saying  '  was '  showed  what  was  meant :  He  that  is 
and  was  and  the  almighty."  He  is  discussing  the  tense  of  "  was  " 
in  John  i^  at  length.  Hebrews  he  quotes  freely.  I  have  not 
noticed  any  quotations  from  Second  or  Third  John  or  Jude.  That 
would  not  be  strange,  even  if  he  had  them  in  his  hands.  But  it 
is  important  to  emphasise  the  difference  between  these  two  friends 


THE  AGE  OF   THEODORE  OF   MOPSUESTIA  275 

in  the  use  of  First  Peter  and  First  John.  Basil  uses  them  often. 
Gregory  not  often.  The  difference  may  be  caused  in  part  by 
differences  in  topics  treated,  closely  as  the  two  were  associated 
with  each  other,  not  merely  personally  but  also  theologically. 
Yet  it  may  well  be  the  case  that  the  difference  lies  partly  in  what 
I  might  term  loosely  a  personal  equation.  I  do  not  mean, 
however,  by  that,  that  one  of  them  would  react  at  the  chance 
of  a  quotation  more  quickly  than  the  other,  but  that  one  of  them 
may  well  have  had,  not  precisely  other  likes  and  dislikes,  but 
other  inclinations  towards  given  books.  The  application  of  this 
is  that  Gregory,  although  he  had  these  books  and  accounted 
them  scripture,  simply  did  not  lean  towards  them  so  much  as 
Basil  did,  and  therefore  quoted  them  less  frequently.  The  wider 
application  is,  that  we  must  be  cautious  in  supposing  that  failure 
to  quote  a  book,  however  pat  its  sentences  may  seem  to  us  to  be 
for  an  author's  purpose,  denotes  that  a  writer  does  not  know 
of  or  directly  refuses  to  quote  the  given  book.  Basil  quotes 
Second  Peter  once,  where  he  had  occasion  to  quote.  The 
occasion  or  his  wish  to  intensify  a  preceding  quotation  might 
easily  have  been  lacking,  and  we  should  have  heard  suggestions 
that  he  did  not  approve  of  this  book. 

Basil's  brother,  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  will  certainly  have  agreed 
with  his  brother,  and  with  their  friend  Gregory  of  Nazianzus  in 
the  reception  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament.  In  his  writings 
I  have  not  noticed  any  quotations  from  James,  Second  Peter, 
Second  and  Third  John,  and  Jude  (I  saw  ten  from  First  John 
and  twelve  from  First  Peter).  Hebrews  he  uses  freely.  He 
appears  really  to  quote  the  Revelation  twice.  Once  he  says  of 
it  (Antirrh.  37) :  "As  says  somewhere  the  word  of  the  scripture," 
and  quotes  from  Rev.  21^  or  221^,  or  from  a  various  reading  of 
1^.  In  the  other  case  he  writes  (Address  at  his  ordination) :  "I 
heard  the  evangelist  John  saying  in  apocryphal  (here  probably  : 
in  lofty  words,  hard  to  understand)  to  such  by  an  enigma,  that 
it  is  necessary  with  great  accuracy  always  to  boil  in  the  spirit, 
but  to  be  cold  in  sin :  For  thou  shouldst  have  been,  he  says, 
cold  or  hot,"  Rev.  3^^ 

Amphilochius,  a  Cappadocian  by  birth,  a  lawyer,  and  then 
Bishop  of  Iconium  in  Lycaonia,  wrote  several  books,  but  very 
little  of  what  he  wrote  has  reached  us.  A  poem  to  Seleucus, 
which   is   sometimes   found   among   the   poems   of  Gregory  of 


276  THE  CANON 

Nazianzus  (2.  7),  was  probably  written  by  him :  "  Moreovei',  it 
much  behoves  thee  to  learn  this.  Not  every  book  is  safe  which 
has  gotten  the  sacred  name  of  scripture.  For  there  are,  there  are 
sometimes,  books  with  false  names.  Some  are  in  the  middle 
and  neighbours,  as  one  might  say,  of  the  words  of  truth.  Others 
are  both  spurious  and  very  dangerous,  like  falsely  stamped  and 
spurious  coins,  which  yet  bear  the  inscription  of  the  king,  but 
are  not  genuine,  are  made  of  false  stuffs.  On  account  of  these 
I  shall  tell  thee  each  of  the  inspired  books.  And  so  that  thou 
mayest  learn  to  distinguish  well,  I  shall  tell  thee  first  those  of  the 
Old  Testament.  The  Pentateuch  has  the  Creation  [  =  Genesis], 
then  Exodus,  and  Leviticus  the  middle  book,  after  which 
Numbers,  then  Deuteronomy.  To  these  add  Joshua  and  the 
Judges.  Then  Ruth,  and  four  books  of  Kings,  and  the  double 
team  of  Chronicles.  Next  to  these  First  Ezra,  and  then  the 
Second.  Following  I  shall  tell  thee  the  five  books  in  verses,  of 
Job  crowned  in  strifes  of  varied  sufferings,  and  the  book  of 
Psalms,  a  harmonious  remedy  for  the  soul ;  and  again,  three  of 
Solomon  the  Wise,  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  and  the  Song  of  Songs. 
To  these  add  the  twelve  prophets,  Hosea  first,  then  Amos  the 
second,  Micah,  Joel,  Abdiah,  and  Jonah  the  type  of  His  three 
days'  passion,  Nahum  after  them.  Habbakuk,  then  a  ninth 
Sophoniah,  both  Haggai  and  Zachariah,  and  the  double  named 
angel  Malachi  (double  named  because  the  Septuaginta  put  the 
translation  of  Malachi — "  angel " — in  and  let  Malachi  stay  also). 
After  them  learn  the  four  prophets  :  the  great  and  bold-speaking 
Isaiah,  and  Jeremiah  the  merciful,  and  the  mystical  Ezekiel,  and 
last  Daniel,  the  same  in  works  and  words  most  wise.  To  these 
some  add  Esther.  It  is  time  for  me  to  say  the  New  Testament 
books.  Receive  only  four  evangelists :  Matthew,  then  Mark,  to 
whom  add  Luke  a  third,  count  John  in  time  a  fourth,  but  first  in 
height  of  teachings,  for  I  call  this  one  rightly  a  son  of  thunder, 
sounding  out  most  greatly  to  the  Word  of  God.  Receive  Luke's 
book,  also,  the  second,  that  of  the  general  (Catholic)  Acts  of  the 
Apostles.  Add  following  the  vessel  of  election,  the  herald  of  the 
Gentiles,  the  Apostle  Paul,  who  wrote  wisely  to  the  Churches 
twice  seven  Epistles,  of  Romans  one,  to  which  it  is  necessary 
to  join  on  to  the  Corinthians  two,  and  that  to  the  Galatians, 
and  that  to  the  Ephesians,  after  which  that  in  Philippi,  then  the 
one  written  to  the  Colossians,  two  to  the  Thessalonians,  two  to 


THE  AGE  OF  THEODORE  OF  MOPSUESTIA  277 

Timothy,  and  to  Titus  and  Philemon,  one  to  each,  and  to  the 
Hebrews  one.  And  some  say  that  the  one  to  the  Hebrews  is 
spurious,  not  saying  well,  for  the  grace  is  genuine.  However 
that  may  be,  what  remains  ?  Some  say  we  must  receive  seven 
Catholic  Epistles,  others  three  alone, — that  of  James  one,  and  one 
of  Peter,  and  that  of  John  one.  And  some  receive  the  three 
(that  is  of  John),  and  in  addition  to  them  the  two  of  Peter,  and 
that  of  Jude  a  seventh.  And  again  some  accept  the  Revelation 
of  John,  but  the  most  call  it  spurious.  This  would  be  the  most 
reliable  (the  most  unfalsified)  canon  of  the  divinely  inspired 
scriptures."  Here  we  have  a  bishop  in  Asia  Minor,  a  mate  of 
the  Gregories  and  of  Basil,  and  yet  he  appears  inclined  to  reject 
Second  Peter,  Second  and  Third  John,  and  Jude,  and  almost 
certainly  rejects  Revelation.  He  himself  accepts  Hebrews,  but 
he  knows  that  others  do  not.  Here  we  have  the  word  "  canon  " 
used  directly. 

Didymus  of  Alexandria,  who  died  about  the  year  395,  wrote  a 
commentary  to  all  seven  of  the  Catholic  Epistles,  of  which,  how- 
ever, only  fragments,  and  that  mostly  in  a  Latin  translation,  have 
been  preserved.  James  he  appears  to  have  fully  accepted.  He 
calls  him  an  apostle  of  the  circumcision  like  Peter.  But  he  pro- 
duces in  the  discussion  of  2  Peter  3^-^,  which  does  not  suit  him, 
a  condemnation  of  the  Epistle  which  seems  to  be  drawn  from 
Eusebius,  whom  we  above  quoted  (Migne,  P.  G.  39.  1774):  "It 
is  therefore  not  to  be  overlooked  that  the  present  Epistle  is 
forged,  which,  although  it  is  read  publicly,  is  yet  not  in  the 
canon."  He  quotes  James,  and  he  refers  to  the  Revelation 
repeatedly  as  John's,  so  that  he  probably  did  not  suppose  that 
another  "John,"  but  that  the  Apostle  John,  wrote  it.  Dionysius' 
criticisms  do  not  seem  to  have  been  accepted  in  his  own  town. 

Epiphanius,  the  Bishop  of  Constantia  or  Salamis  on  Cyprus, 
who  died  in  the  year  403,  gives  us  a  somewhat  careless  list  which 
undoubtedly  contains  all  our  books,  although  he  does  not  say 
precisely  seven  Catholic  Epistles.  He  adds  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment thus  (Haer.  76) :  "  Revelation,  and  in  the  Wisdoms  I  say 
both  of  Solomon  and  of  the  son  of  Sirach,  and  simply  in  all 
the  divine  scriptures."  He  seems  really  to  account  these  two 
books  as  scripture.  In  his  refutation  of  the  heretics  whom 
he  calls  Alogi,  he  speaks  several  times  of  the  Revelation  as 
from  John  the  Evangelist. 


2/8  THE  GANON 

A  council  at  Carthage  in  the  year  397  decreed  a  canon  about 
the  reading  in  church  (Can.  39) :  "  It  is  also  settled  that  aside  from 
the  Canonical  Scriptures  nothing  is  to  be  read  in  church  under  the 
name  of  Divine  Scriptures.  Moreover,  the  Divine  Scriptures  are 
these."  Then  follow  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  including 
Tobit,  Judith,  Esther,  and  Maccabees,  and  the  books  of  the  New 
Testament.  I  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  nothing  else  is  to 
be  read  in  Church  under  the  name  of  scripture,  and  recall  the 
distinction  between:  God  to  Man,  and:  Man  to  Man,  We 
must  further  observe  the  use  of  "  canonical."  In  the  records  the 
following  is  attached  to  this  canon :  "  Let  this  also  be  made 
known  to  our  brother  and  fellow-priest  Boniface,  or  to  other 
bishops  of  those  parts,  for  the  sake  of  confirming  this  canon, 
because  we  have  received  from  the  fathers  that  these  are  to  be 
read  in  Church.  It  is,  moreover,  to  be  allowed  that  the  passions 
of  the  martyrs  be  read  when  their  anniversary  days  are  celebrated." 
The  reference  to  Boniface,  who  did  not  become  Bishop  of  Rome 
until  418,  is  probably  due  to  the  person  who  superintended  the 
codifying  of  the  canons  of  a  series  of  the  Carthaginian  councils, 
possibly  in  the  year  419.  The  other  statement,  that  the  acts 
of  the  martyrs  may  be  read  on  their  days,  confirms  what  was 
said  a  moment  ago.  That  was :  Man  to  Man.  It  did  not 
come  under  the  name  of  Divine  Scripture. 

Lucifer  of  Cagliari  on  Sardinia,  who  died  in  the  year  370, 
does  not,  so  far  as  I  have  observed,  quote  James  or  Second  Peter 
or  Third  John  or  Revelation,  but  then  he  also  fails  to  quote 
Mark  and  Philemon,  so  that  the  lack  of  quotations  proves 
nothing.  He  does  quote  Second  John  three  times  (Migne,  P.  L. 
13.  780-790).  Once  he  says:  "So  also  when  the  blessed  John 
orders,"  and  again :  "  Therefore  also  the  apostle  says  in  this 
Second  Epistle."  He  quotes  Jude  four  times  close  together, 
and  that  fourteen  verses  out  of  Jude's  twenty-five.  And  he 
quotes  Hebrews  as  Paul's  (MPL  13.  782-784):  "Showing  an 
example  of  whose  reprobation  Paul  says  to  the  Hebrews,"  and 
there  follow  fourteen  verses,  and  then  three  more.  He  does 
not  happen  to  give  us  anything  from  the  Revelation,  but  his 
pupil  or  adherent  Faustinus  does.  Faustinus  refers  to  Hebrews 
three  times  as  a  letter  of  Paul's,  and  he  also  calls  it  Divine 
Scripture.  Pie  quotes  the  Revelation  by.  name  (De  trin.  3.  i) : 
"  But  also  the  Apostle  John  says  this  in  the  Revelation." 


THE  AGE  OF   THEODORE  OF   MOPSUESTIA  279 

Pacianus  quotes  Hebrews  as  Paul's,  and  so  does  Pelagius. 
Hilary  of  Rome  quotes  it  in  connection  with  other  matter  from 
Paul,  but  does  not  say  exactly  that  it  is  his ;  doubtless  he  thought 
so.  Julius  Hilarianus  about  the  year  397  quotes  the  Revelation 
by  name.  Zeno  of  Verona  quotes  apparently  Second  Peter,  and 
possibly  Hebrews.  The  Revelation  he  names  as  John's. 
Optatus,  the  Bishop  of  Milevis,  in  Numidia,  who  flourished 
about  the  year  370,  quotes  curiously  enough  an  Epistle  of 
Peter  by  name,  but  the  words  are  not  found  in  the  Epistles 
bearing  Peter's  name.  They  are  more  like  James  4^1  than  any- 
thing else.  He  writes  (De  schisma  Don.  i.  5) :  "Since  we  have 
read  in  the  Epistle  of  Peter  the  Apostle :  Do  not  judge  your 
brethren  by  opinion."  That  may  serve  as  a  warning  against 
treating  quotations  too  strictly.  No  one  will  think  of  saying 
that  Optatus  here  intends  to  declare  some  apocryphal  book  to 
be  scripture.  It  is  interesting  further  to  see  that  he  in  more 
than  one  place  uses  the  word  Testament  apparently  for  both 
Testaments :  "  The  Divine  Testament  we  read  alike.  We  pray 
to  one  God." 

John  Chrysostom,  the  golden-mouthed  preacher  from  Antioch 
who  became  Bishop  of  Constantinople,  was  preeminently  a  man 
of  the  scriptures.  Even  his  homilies  show  his  philological  care- 
fulness and  his  clear  insight.  His  testimony  stands  properly  for 
Syria,  where  he  did  his  first  work.  He  was  born  at  Antioch 
in  347,  and  died  in  the  year  407.  But  he  wielded  also  in  and 
from  Constantinople  during  his  brief  and  eventful  work  there 
a  wide  influence.  His  homilies  are  by  far  the  most  diligently 
copied  works  of  the  early  and  of  the  late  Greek  Church.  If 
we  see  to-day  in  a  library  of  Greek  manuscripts  a  fine  folio 
volume,  if  we  find  in  the  binding  of  a  manuscript  a  beautifully 
WTitten  parchment  leaf,  the  first  thought  of  an  experienced 
scholar  is :  It  is  probably  Chrysostom.  It  usually  is.  He 
refers  to  the  Epistle  of  James  "the  Lord's  brother,"  but  he 
appears  not  to  make  any  use  of  Second  Peter,  Second  and 
Third  John,  and  Jude.  Hebrews  he  considers  to  be  Paul's. 
The  Revelation  he  does  not  quote.  Notwithstanding  this 
failure  to  cite  from  five  of  the  seven  doubted  books,  Suidas  says, 
when  speaking  of  the  Apostle  John,  that  "  Chrysostom  receives 
both  his  three  Epistles  and  the  Revelation."  I  must  confess  that 
I  do  not  lay  any  great  stress  upon  this  testimony  of  Suidas.     A 


280  THE  CANON 

line  or  two  before  he  lets  the  Apostle  John  live  a  hundred  and 
twenty  years,  a  totally  improbable  statement,  one  without  the 
least  foundation  in  the  known  traditions  of  the  early  Church, 
and  one  which  would  without  doubt  have  been  commemorated 
if  true  in  the  Church  of  Asia  Minor,  and  have  been  known  to 
thousands  before  Suidas  published  it  in  the  tenth  century.  I 
could  much  more  easily  beheve  that  Chrysostom  received  all 
three  of  the  Epistles  of  John  and  the  Revelation  than  I  could 
believe  that  John  had  lived  to  be  a  hundred  and  twenty  years 
old  without  its  being  mentioned  by  Polycarp  or  Papias  or  some 
one  else  in  the  second  century.  But  I  put  no  great  faith  in  one 
or  the  other  statement. 

There  is  not  the  least  reason,  that  I  can  see,  to  think  that 
Chrysostom  quoted  Second  Peter  in  his  homilies  on  John.  The 
words  are  much  nearer  the  passage  in  Proverbs.  At  the  same 
time  we  have  in  the  bishop  of  Helenopolis — the  birthplace  of 
Constantine's  mother — Palladius,  a  friend  of  Chrysostom's,  who 
wrote  a  dialogue  "  On  the  life  and  conversation  of  the  sainted 
John,  bishop  of  Constantinople,  Golden  Mouth,"  and  in  this  work 
he  quotes  both  Third  John  and  Jude.  He  writes  (Galland,  8. 
313):  "About  which  things  Jude  the  brother  of  James  says," 
and  adds  Jude  ^'^.  And  again  (Gall.  8.  322):  "As  the 
blessed  John  writes  in  the  Catholic  Epistles  to  Gaius,"  and  he 
quotes  3  John  ^"^  and  ^-  ^^'  ^^.  That  is  Asia  Minor.  And  on 
the  other  side  of  the  Antioch  line  we  find  in  a  chain — a  catena — 
that  Eusebius  of  Emesa,  now  Homs,  about  1 50  kilometres  north 
of  Damascus,  quoted  Second  Peter  (Wolf,  Anecd.  Gr.  4.  96) : 
"  Wherefore  the  apostle  says  in  the  Catholic  (Epistle) :  Speech- 
less beast,"  2  Peter  2^^.  It  is  interesting  that  merely  those 
two  apparently  indifferent  words  should  have  caused  the  reference 
to  that  Epistle,  and  should  have  been  handed  down  to  us 
through  that  chain.  A  Synopsis  of  scripture  which  is  placed 
in  the  editions  of  the  works  of  Chrysostom  gives  a  very  full 
descriptive  list  of  the  Old  Testament  books,  and  then  disposes 
of  the  New  Testament  books  as  well  known  quite  briefly.  It 
gives  fourteen  Epistles  of  Paul,  four  Gospels,  Acts,  and  three 
Catholic  Epistles.  That  last  can  only  be  applied  to  James, 
with  First  Peter  and  First  John. 

We  mentioned  above  a  bishop  of  Asia  Minor,  a  friend  of 
Chrysostom's.     There  is  still  another  and  a  more  important  one, 


THE  AGE  OF  THEODORE  OF   MOPSUESTIA  28 1 

namely  Theodore.  He  was  born  at  Antioch  about  the  year 
350.  At  first  a  priest  in  Antioch  from  383  onwards,  he  was 
made  Bishop  of  Mopsuestia  in  CiHcia  in  392  and  died  in  4.28. 
He  was  what  would  be  called  to-day  a  historical  critical  exegete, 
and  the  Church  condemned  him  as  a  heretic,  and  did  all  it  could 
to  remand  his  valuable  writings  to  oblivion,  although  he  was  the 
most  important  scholar  who  had  appeared  since  the  days  of 
Origen.  He  wrote  commentaries  on  Matthew,  Luke,  John,  and 
the  fourteen  Epistles  of  Paul.  These  books  he  acknowledged. 
It  is  hard  to  say  with  certainty  what  his  position  was  with  respect 
to  the  Catholic  Epistles.  Summing  up  as  well  as  can  be  done, 
in  view  of  the  fragmentary  condition  of  his  literary  remains,  it 
seems  likely  that  he  rejected  James,  Second  and  Third  John, 
Jude,  and  Revelation,  and  accepted  First  Peter  and  First  John. 
Another  bishop,  Theodoretus,  was  also  born  at  Antioch.  He 
was  the  bishop  of  Kyros  on  the  Euphrates.  So  far  as  we  can  see 
he  agreed  with  Chrysostom. 

We  have  from  Junilius — who  has  been  supposed  to  be  an 
African  bishop,  but  who  now  appears  to  have  been  by  birth  an 
African,  and  by  office  one  of  the  highest  members  of  state  in 
Constantinople — an  account  of  the  view  of  the  New  Testament 
books  at  Nisibis  in  the  sixth  century.  Junilius  died  soon  after 
550.  He  gives  at  first  only  First  Peter  and  First  John  as 
Catholic  Epistles,  but  says  afterwards  that  a  great  many  people 
accept  also  James,  Second  Peter,  Jude,  Second  and  Third  John. 
Hebrews  stands  as  Paul's.  And  of  Revelation  he  says  that  it  is 
a  matter  of  much  doubt  among  the  Orientals. 

If  Junilius  was  really  a  statesman  we  can  cap  him  with 
another,  and  that  a  greater  one.  Cassiodorius  was  prime  minister 
under  Theodoric,  and  then  devoted  himself  to  his  monks  in  his 
monastery,  Vivarium  in  Bruttium,  in  Calabria.  In  his  handbook  of 
theology  for  his  ascetes  he  gave  three  differently  arranged  lists  of 
the  New  Testament  books  in  three  succeeding  chapters.  The 
first  one  is  said  to  be  from  Jerome,  though  we  do  not  find  it  in 
Jerome's  works,  the  second  is  from  Augustine,  and  the  third  is  from 
what  Cassiodorius  calls  the  "  old  translation."  This  third  list  does 
not  name  Second  Peter  or  Second  and  Third  John.  It  probably 
includes  Hebrews  silently  as  Paul's,  and  it  has  Revelation. 
This  book  was  apparently  much  used  in  the  West,  but  that 
omission  or  those  omissions  of  the  third  list  will  probably  not 


282  TIIK  ("ANON 

have  had  the  least  influence  upon  anyone.  1'he  "old  transla- 
tion "  may  not  have  had  those  hooks  in  ('assiodorius' volumes, 
but  the  books  were  in  voj^uc  in  the  curicnl  translation,  ;ni(l  that 
was  enough  for  the  tiioroughly  uncritical  mind  of  the-  average 
monk  or  priest.  The  Oxlex  Claromontanus  ^ivcs  us  in  the  list 
above  refc^rred  to  Janu's,  Second  Peter,  Second  and  Third  John, 
Jude,  and  Revelation.  The  omission  of  Philij)i)ians,  V'nsl  and 
Second  Thessalonians,  and  llchrews  is  probably  merely  a  clerical 
error  of  a  copyist. 

'I'wo  men  in  the  West  call  for  sj)ecial  n-mark  :  the  one  because 
v/  of  his  intense  o("Cupation  with  tlu;  scri|)turi's,  the  other  bi'cause 
of  his  imi)ortancc  in  the  (Church  of  his  day  and  of  tin;  following 
centuries.  These  are  Jeromi-  and  Augustine.  Jerome  was  not 
of  the  great  mental  power  of  Theodore  of  Mo|)suestia,  for 
example,  but  he  was  of  good  parts,  travelled  widely,  studied 
diligently,  owned  his  debt  to  his  distinguished  predecessors  from 
whose  works  he  drew,  and  he  worked  enormously.  Augustine 
was  locally  and  in  his  studiis  mu(  h  more  limited,  but  Ik;  made 
up  for  that  by  a  keenness  of  j)ercei)tion,  a  breadth  of  mental 
range,  a  fixedness  of  i)urpose,  and  a  force  of  communit:ating  his 
thoughts  which  have  made  him  the  leader  and  the  resource  of 
Western  Christianity  from  the  lifth  century  to  the  twentieth. 

Jerome  was  by  birth  of  a  ( 'hristian  family  in  Pannonia,  and 
saw  the  light  about  the  year  346  at  Stridon.  He  studied  at 
Rome,  then  travelled  north  as  far  as  Trier,  then  to  the  I'^ast,  where 
in  the  year  373,  as  one  of  the  conseciuences  of  a  severe  illness,  he 
determined  to  devote  himself  to  the  study  of  the  scriptures. 
AftcT  spending  five  years  in  the  desert,  having  been  ordained 
presbyter  at  Antioch  in  the  year  379,  having  visited  (Constantinople 
to  hear  (iregory  of  Nazian/us,  and  having  stayed  three  years 
(382-385)  at  Rome,  hr  returned  to  the  I'/ist,  to  Antioch,  to  ICgypl, 
and  fmally  to  HethleluMU,  when;  Ik-  passed  tin;  rirst  of  his  life  : 
386-420.  What  concerns  us  most  is  his  n^vision  of  th(;  Latin 
translation  of  the  New  Testament,  of  which  he  handed  the 
(lospels  to  the  IJishop  of  Rome,  Damasus,  in  the  year  384. 
Perhaps  he  completed  the  rest — he  did  not  do  it  so  carefully  as 
the  (]osj)els — a  year  later.  This  Nc;w  Ti'stament  contained  the 
books  which  we  use,  and  as  it  little  by  little  came  to  be  the  chief 
Latin  copy,  its  books  became  the  accepted  books  of  the  Western 
Church.      Nevertheless,  with  his  encyclojKcdic  view  of  Christi- 


TiiK  A(;k  ok  TiiisonoKi-:  ov  MorsuivsriA        2^^ 

anity  he  knew  very  well  the  doubts  that  had  hvvn  raisrd  as  to 
some  books,  and  he  referred  to  them  upon  occasion. 

Oddly  tMiou<j;h,  he  shows  by  a  most  trillini;  circumstance  that  he 
considered  Ilarnabas  almost  if  not  (luite  a  New  Tistainiiil  book. 
That  canu>  about  as  follows.  With  his  knowledi^e  ol"  Hebrew  he 
dri'W  uj)  at  Hethleluin  in  tlu'  year  ^^SS  a  list  of  the  Hebrew  names 
in  the  scriptures,  giving  their  meaning,  book  by  book.  Therefore 
every  book  in  the  New  Testament  comes  into  tlu>  list,  savi; 
Second  John,  which  does  not  iiai)pen  to  contain  any  nanu-  ; 
Third  John  is  in  the  list  sometimes  called  Second  John,  because^ 
it  here  is  the  second  10j)istK'  of  John's  that  is  mentionid.  Of 
course,  that  does  not  mean  that  he  ri'jected  Second  John.  And 
then  at  the  end  of  the  New  'l\'slament  he  gives  thirteen  names 
from  Harnabas,  winding  up  with  Satan.  'I'hat  was  or  is  almost  a 
canonising  of  JJarnabas  for  him.  He  was  a  great  defender  of 
Origen's,  and  therefore  closely  bound  to  Alexandria,  and  this  high 
estimation  of  barnabas  was  probably  a  result  of  his  imbibing  the 
Ali'xandrian  special  valuation  of  that  book. 

Hiri'  and  there  we  can  find  references  to  th(*  case  of  tin; 
seven  doubtful  books.  Sj)eaking  of  James,  "who  is  called  the 
brother  of  the  Lord,"  hi^  says  (Devir.  ill.  2):  "  Hc>  wrote  only 
one  IC|)istle,  whic;h  is  oiu-  of  the  seven  ("alholies,  and  which  very 
letter  is  asserti-d  to  have  bin-n  publislu'd  by  somebody  clsc^  under 
his  name,  although  by  degrees  as  time  goes  on  it  has  gaini'd 
authority."  As  for  Second  JV-ter,  he  has  a  spicial  suggestion 
(K[).  120):  "ThcTcfore  he  |Paul|  used  to  have  Titus  as  his  in- 
terj)reter" — interpreter  hen-  means  also  scribe, — "just  as  also  tin; 
sainted  Peter  had  Mark,  whosi;  Oospel  was  composetl  by  IVtcr's 
dictating  and  his  writing.  Mnally  also,  the  two  letti-rs  of  I*cter's 
which  we  have  differ  from  each  other  in  style  and  character  and 
in  tlu^  structure  of  the  words.  l-'rom  which  vvc  perceivt;  that  hi: 
used  different  int(;rpreters."  And  in  another  work,  speaking  of 
Peter  he  says  (I)e  vir.  ill.  i):  "He  wrote  two  ICpistles  wliich  art; 
called  Catholic,  of  which  the  second  is  by  many  denied  to  be  his 
because  of  the;  differenci;  of  styli:  from  the  former."  Second  and 
Third  John  do  not  seem  to  him  to  be  from  tiie  aj)ostIe.  JIc 
does  not  state,  as  in  the  case  of  James,  Second  Peter,  and  Jude, 
that  the  given  author  "wrote"  them.  In  his  ac^eoniit  of  John 
he  says  (I)e  vir.  ill.  9):  "But  he  wrote  also  oni:  ]C|)islK-,  .  .  . 
which  is  approved  by  all  churchly  and  very  learned  men.     J{ut 


284  THE  CANON 

the  other  two  ...  are  said  to  be  from  John  a  presbyter."  He 
writes  of  Jude  (De  vir.  ill.  4) :  "  Jude,  the  brother  of  the  Lord, 
left  behind  a  little  Epistle  which  is  of  the  seven  Catholics.  And 
because  it  quotes  the  book  of  Enoch  which  is  apocryphal  it  is 
rejected  by  a  great  many.  Yet  by  age  even  and  custom  it  has  de- 
served authority,  and  it  is  reckoned  among  the  sacred  scriptures." 

The  remaining  two  books  are  spoken  of  by  Jerome  in  a  letter 
to  a  patrician,  Gaudianus  Postumus  Dardanus,  written  in  the 
year  414,  and  the  passage  is  very  instructive,  in  view  of  the 
opposition  to  Hebrews  in  the  Western  Church  (Ep.  129): 
"That  is  to  be  said  to  our  friends,  that  this  Epistle  which  is 
inscribed  to  the  Hebrews  is  received  not  only  by  the  Churches  of 
the  East,  but  also  by  all  Church  writers  of  the  Greek  tongue 
before  our  day,  as  of  Paul  the  Apostle,  although  many  think  that 
it  is  from  Barnabas  or  Clement.  And  it  makes  no  difference 
whose  it  is,  since  it  is  from  a  churchman,  and  is  celebrated  in  the 
daily  reading  of  the  Churches.  And  if  the  usage  of  the  Latins 
does  not  receive  it  among  the  Canonical  Scriptures,  neither  indeed 
by  the  same  liberty  do  the  Churches  of  the  Greeks  receive  the 
Revelation  of  John.  And  yet  we  accept  both,  in  that  we  follow 
by  no  means  the  habit  of  to-day,  but  the  authority  of  ancient 
writers,  who  for  the  most  part  quote  each  of  them,  not  as  they 
are  sometimes  accustomed  to  do  the  apocrypha,  and  even  also  as 
they  use  rarely  the  examples  of  the  profane  books,  but  as  canonical 
and  churchly."  Twenty  years  earlier,  in  a  letter  to  Paulinus,  about 
the  study  of  the  scriptures,  Jerome  said  (Ep.  53):  "Paul  the 
Apostle  wrote  to  seven  Churches,  for  the  eighth  to  the  Hebrews 
is  put  by  many  outside  of  the  number."  That  is  less  decided. 
He  had  become  more  clearly  in  favour  of  the  authenticity  between 
394  and  414.  Jerome  was  no  incisive  critic.  He  was  in  general 
a  vain  and  quarrelsome  man,  but  he  acquiesced  calmly  in  the  list 
of  books  for  the  New  Testament  which  were  then  in  use.  The 
nearest  approach  to  personal  dissent  seems  to  be  the  view  of 
Second  and  Third  John.  But  those  Epistles  were  on  the  one 
hand  minimal  quantities,  and  on  the  other  hand  they  might  well 
come  under  the  delightfully  liberal  rule  for  canonisation  that 
Jerome  gives  in  speaking  of  Hebrews. 

Jerome's  friend  Augustine,  who  was  born  in  the  year  354  at 
Tagaste  in  Numidia,  and  after  a  wild  youth  and  a  heretical  and 
half-heathen    early    manhood   was    baptized   at   Milan   in    387, 


THE  AGE  OF  THEODORE  OF   MOPSUESTIA  285 

returned  to  Africa  an  ardent  Christian,  and  became  assistant 
Bishop  of  Hippo  in  395.  He  too  accepted  in  a  way  the  books 
now  in  our  New  Testament.  He  said  that  the  Christian  must 
read  them,  and  at  first  know  them  at  least  by  the  reading  even  if 
he  cannot  comprehend  them,  but  only  the  books  called  canonical. 
The  other  books  are  only  to  be  read  by  one  who  is  well  grounded 
in  the  faith  of  the  truth.  But  he  shows  after  all  that  he 
recognised  grades  in  value  among  the  canonical  books.  The 
Christian  reader  (De  doctr.  Chr.  2.  12):  "Will  hold  fast  there- 
fore to  this  measure  in  the  Canonical  Scriptures,  that  he  place 
in  the  front  rank  those  which  are  received  by  all  Catholic  Churches 
before  those  which  some  do  not  receive.  Among  those,  more- 
over, which  are  not  received  by  all,  let  him  prefer  those  which 
more  and  more  important  Churches  accept  to  those  which 
fewer  and  less  authoritative  Churches  hold.  Should  he,  however, 
find  some  to  be  held  by  very  many  and  others  by  very  weighty 
Churches,  although  this  cannot  easily  happen,  yet  I  think  that 
they  are  to  be  regarded  as  of  equal  authority." 

In  his  list  of  the  books  he  puts  James  at  the  end  of  the 
Catholic  Epistles,  thus  giving  Peter  the  first  place.  But  all  the 
seven  doubtful  books  stand  unquestioned  in  his  list.  It  is 
perfectly  clear  that  he  has  a  certain  feeling  of  hesitancy  with 
respect  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  He  says  in  the  list,  it 
is  true,  that  there  are  fourteen  Epistles  of  Paul's,  and  Hebrews 
follows  as  the  fourteenth  after  Philemon.  But  when  he  quotes 
it,  it  turns  out  that  in  his  later  works  he  avoids  with  painful 
accuracy  saying  that  Paul  wrote  it.  He  quotes  it  and  therefore 
he  doubtless  thinks  it  canonical,  and  he  once  calls  it  directly 
"  Holy  Scripture,"  but  he  does  not  know  who  wrote  it.  He 
says:  "As  we  read  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,"  "As  is 
written,"  "  Which  is  written,"  "  Who  writing  to  the  Hebrews  said," 
"Tell  it  to  him  who  wrote  to  the  Hebrews,"  "This,  moreover, 
therefore  said  the  author  of  that  sacred  Epistle,"  "  In  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews  which  the  distinguished  defenders  of  the  Catholic 
rule  have  used  as  a  witness."  Curiously  enough,  Julian  the 
Pelagian,  against  whom  Augustine  writes,  does  ascribe  Hebrews 
to  Paul  (Aug.  contr.  Jul.  3.  40):  "The  Aposde  understood  this 
type  of  speech,  who  spoke  as  follows  to  the  Hebrews."  As  for 
the  Revelation,  Augustine  (Serm.  299)  once  suggested  the  pos- 
sibility that  his  opponent,  a  Pelagian,  may  not  accept  it :  "  And 


286  THE  CANON 

if  by  chance  thou  who  likest  these  [heretical]  things  shouldst  not 
accept  this  scripture  [a  quotation  from  Revelation],  or,  if  thou 
accept,  despise  and  say  :  They  are  not  expressly  named." 

Jerome  and  Augustine  settled  the  matter  of  the  number  of 
the  books  of  the  New  Testament  for  the  orthodox  circles  in  the 
Western  Church  so  far  as  there  may  have  lingered  in  it  here  and 
there  doubts  as  to  some  of  the  books.  But  we  shall  see  in  a 
moment  that  in  heretical  circles  other  opinions  ventured  to 
continue.  We  saw  above  that  certain  books  which  do  not  belong 
to  our  New  Testament  were  long  favoured  in  the  West  even  in 
thoroughly  churchly  provinces.  In  Spain,  after  the  reconciliation 
of  the  Western  Goths  with  the  Church,  their  dislike  to  the 
Revelation  evidently  continued  to  show  itself.  In  consequence 
the  Council  of  Toledo,  in  the  year  633,  declared  that  the  ancient 
councils  stood  for  the  authorship  of  the  Revelation  on  the  part 
of  the  evangelist  John.  It  added  in  a  sentence,  which  neverthe- 
less appears  to  be  of  doubtful  authenticity,  that  many  regard  it 
as  of  no  authority  and  refuse  to  preach  from  it.  The  decree  of 
the  council  was  (Mansi,  10.  624) :  "  If  anyone  henceforth  either 
shall  not  have  accepted  it,  or  shall  not  have  preached  from  it 
from  Easter  to  Whitsuntide  at  the  time  of  mass  in  the  church, 
he  shall  have  the  sentence  of  excommunication." 

/  Here  we  may  close  our  view  of  the  criticism  of  the  canon.  The 
one  great  result  is  that  which  has  not  come  to  the  surface  during 
the  whole  discussion.  We  have  not  said  anything  about  a 
determination  of  the  books  which  belong  to  the  New  Testament 
on  the  part  of  a  general  council  of  the  Christian  Church.  We 
could  say  nothing  about  such  a  determination,  because  there  never 
was  one.  Now  and  then  a  local  or  partial  council  ratified  the 
statements  of  some  preceding  Church  writer. 

The  criticism  of  the  canon  shows,  then,  that  in  the  sense  in 
which  the  word  used  to  be  understood,  and  is  by  some  to-day 
still  understood,  there  never  was  a  canon.  At  no  period  in  the 
history  of  Christianity  did  the  necessity  make  itself  apparent  to 
the  whole  Church  to  say  just  what  was  and  just  what  was  not 
scripture.  Tertullian  mentioned  synods,  which  can  only  have 
been  small  local  synods,  that  rejected  the  Shepherd  of  Hermas, 
but  he  spoke  of  none  which  had  stated  what  the  books  of  the 
New   Testament   were.      He   spoke   of  the   Jews   as   rejecting 


THE  AGE  OF  THEODORE  OF   MOPSUESTIA  287 

certain  things  in  the  Old  Testament  "which  sound  out  Christ," 
and  gave  thus  a  pleasing  rule  for  the  correctness  of  biblical 
literature.  But  he  did  not  lay  this  down  as  a  canon,  or  say  that 
it  had  been  universally  and  authoritatively  sanctioned.  Augustine, 
the  sound  churchman,  declared  that  the  scriptures  depend  from 
the  Church.  He  even  went  so  far  as  to  say  in  the  contest  against 
the  half  heathenish  Manichseans  :  "  I  indeed  should  not  believe 
in  the  Gospel,  if  the  authority  of  the  Catholic  Church  did  not 
press  me  to  it."  It  is  true  that  Christianity  is  a  life,  and  that 
this  life  lives  on  in  the  Church.  Yet  this  life  is  the  Gospel.  It  is 
nothing  without  the  Gospel.  It  seems  to  me,  therefore,  that  this 
excited  word  of  Augustine's  was  all  in  all  a  frivolous  word.  It  is 
upon  a  par  with  the  foolishness  of  those  Christians  who  to-day 
declare  in  theological  controversy  that  if  the  contention  of  their 
opponents,  Christian  opponents,  be  proved  true,  they  will  give 
up  the  Bible.  And  yet  even  this  Augustine  could  not  point  to 
an  authoritative  deliverance  of  the  whole  Church  touching  the 
books  of  scripture.  More  than  that,  although  he,  with  Jerome, 
proved  in  a  way  the  surcease  of  doubts  as  to  books  now  in  our 
New  Testament,  he  nevertheless  really  put  down  two  points  which 
are  altogether  incompatible  with  the  notion  that,  let  us  say,  by 
the  time  of  Irenaeus  the  canon  of  the  New  Testament  was  for  all 
good  orthodox  Christians  a  definitely  settled  fact. 

The  first  point  touches,  in  the  first  place,  the  fact  that  he  does 
not  regard  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  as  all  of  equal 
authority,  as  having  each  and  all  of  them  the  same  right  to  be  in 
the  collection.  In  the  second  place,  it  decides  definitely  that 
they  have  not  each  and  all  equal  authority  and  value.  In  the  third 
place,  it  does  not  refer  the  decision  upon  the  quality,  character, 
authority,  and  canonical  standing  of  the  separate  books  to  ancient 
and  acknowledged  councils  and  their  decrees.  In  the  fourth  place, 
it  refers  the  decision  to  a  majority  vote,  a  vote  which  combines 
numbers  and  authority.  In  the  fifth  place,  the  judge  who  is  to 
decide  is  not  a  council  then  in  session,  or  soon  to  be  gathered 
together,  but  the  Christian  reader.  In  the  sixth  place,  he  puts 
before  our  eyes,  taken  strictly,  five  classes  of  books. — A.  The 
books  accepted  by  all  churches.  B.  The  books  rejected  by 
some  churches.  A.  remains  a  class  for  itself.  JS.  is  divided  into 
four  possible  classes,  although  he  scarcely  thinks  that  the  two 
last  classes  will  really  come   into  consideration.     B.a.  contains 


288  THE  CANON 

the  books  that  many  and  important  churches  accept.  The 
"important"  churches  in  Augustine's  eyes  are  those  that  have 
apostoHcal  bishops'  seats :  Alexandria,  Antioch,  Rome,  and  those 
that  received  Epistles  from  apostles.  B.b.  comprises  the  books 
that  are  accepted  by  fewer  and  by  less  important  churches.  Be. 
comprises  the  books  that  are  received  by  a  great  many, — that  is  to 
say,  by  the  majority  of  the  churches,  but  without  the  important 
churches.  Whereas  B,d.  includes  the  books  that  but  a  few, 
it  is  true,  yet  those  the  important  churches,  accept.  According 
to  Augustine's  view,  of  course,  the  A.  class  is  to  be  accepted  and 
to  be  regarded  as  of  the  highest  authority.  The  B.  class  is  to  be 
thought  less  authoritative.  Going  to  the  under-divisions  of  the  B. 
class,  B.a.  is  to  be  accepted,  the  books  in  B.b.  are  to  be 
rejected.  The  case  is  more  difficult  between  B.C.  and  B.d.^ 
between  multitude  and  knowledge  or  insight.  Augustine  knows 
how  to  solve  the  problem.  The  decision  is  :  "I  think  they  are 
to  be  held  to  be  of  equal  authority."  That  is  a  curiously 
indefinite  canonical  decision  for  the  fifth  century.  That  is  the 
first  point.  The  second  point  is  the  great  one,  but  it  demands 
no  discussion.  It  is  the  fact  that  Augustine  thus  really  tells  us 
that  he  regards  the  number  of  the  books  in  the  New  Testament 
as  not  yet  settled.  It  is  still  a  question  whether  this  or  that  book 
belongs  to  the  fully  authoritative  New  Testament  or  not.  There 
is  no  canon  in  the  technical  sense  of  the  word. 

But  we  have  a  New  Testament,  and  the  Christian  Church  of 
Europe  and  America  supposes  it  to  consist  in  all  parts  of  the 
world  of  the  same  books,  of  the  books,  of  course,  which  we  use. 
That  supposition  is  the  result  of  what  might  be  called  a  half- 
unconscious  process  of  closing  the  eyes  to  the  testimony  of 
history. 

When  the  great  mental  upturning  of  the  fifteenth  and  six- 
teenth centuries  took  place,  many  Christians  saw  clearly  how 
precarious  the  standing  of  the  seven  disputed  books  was,  of 
James,  Second  Peter,  Second  and  Third  John,  Jude,  Hebrews, 
and  Revelation.  Ever  prudent  Erasmus  aimed  his  judicious 
questionings — which  were  interwoven  with  assurances  of  willing 
acceptance  of  the  books — at  Hebrews,  Second  and  Third  John, 
and  Revelation.  Luther  declared  freely  that  five  books,  John, 
Romans,  Galatians,  Ephesians,  and  First  Peter,  were  enough 
for  any  Christian;  yet,  while  he  received  the  books  of  the  New 


THE  AGE  OF  THEODORE  OF   MOPSUESTIA  289 

Testament  in  general,  he  boldly  put  Hebrews,  the  "  straw-like  " 
James,  Jude,  and  Revelation  in  a  lower  class.  Karlstadt  made 
three  groups  of  books.  The  Gospels  formed  the  first.  The  second 
consisted  of  the  thirteen  Epistles  of  Paul  with  First  Peter  and 
First  John.  And  the  third  contained  the  seven  disputed  books. 
Oecolampadius  stated  that  James,  Second  Peter,  Second  and 
Third  John,  Jude,  and  Revelation  were  not  to  be  compared  to 
the  rest,  which  was  equivalent  to  putting  them  in  a  much  lower 
second  class.  Calvin  discussed  the  disputed  books  quite  freely. 
He  actually  accepted  everything  in  a  way.  Nevertheless  he 
showed  that  he  was  not  overmuch  pleased  with  James  and 
Jude,  and  not  much  pleased  with  Second  Peter.  And  in  his 
commentary  he  left  out  Second  and  Third  John  and  Revela- 
tion,, and  called  First  John  "the  Epistle  of  John."  Grotius, 
who  died  in  1645,  accepted  Hebrews  as  probably  written  by 
Luke,  and  James  and  Revelation  as  John's.  But  he  regarded 
Second  Peter  as  a  brace  of  Epistles — the  first  =  chs.  i.  2, 
the  second  =  ch.  3 — written  by  James'  successor,  Simeon,  the 
second  bishop  of  Jerusalem.  He  did  not  think  that  Second 
and  Third  John  were  from  John.  And  he  supposed  that  Jude 
had  been  written  by  a  bishop  of  Jerusalem  named  Jude,  who 
lived  under  Hadrian. 

That  was  all  very  well.  Such  discussions  showed  progress 
and  not  a  retrograde  movement.  They  revivified  tradition. 
But  there  were,  on  the  other  hand,  motives  rife  which  made  a 
greater  definiteness  seem  desirable.  Rome  and  her  offshoots 
sought  for  decisions.  It  was  to  them  immaterial  whether  or  not 
they  were  true  to  history.  They  wished  a  firm  basis  for  their 
arguments  in  an  immovable  Word. 

Rome  wished  on  her  part  to  stand  up  for  that  Word  which 
the  Reformers  were  placing  in  the  foreground,  and  desired  to 
sanction  a  form  of  it  agreeable  to  herself.  Therefore  the  Council 
of  Trent,  on  the  8th  of  April  1546,  made  the  Old  Testament, 
including  the  now  fully  normative  Apocrypha,  and  the  complete 
New  Testament  a  matter  of  faith.  It  even  went  so  far  as  to 
make  the  Latin  text,  which  its  leaders  used,  the  "  authentic  "  text 
of  the  Bible.  The  insufficient  insight  of  those  who  guided  that 
decision  was  shown  by  the  fact  that  the  papal  edition  of  that 
"  authentic  "  text  was  so  bad  as  to  need  speedy  and  shamefaced 
replacement  by  a  somewhat  better  though  far  from  excellent 
19 


290  THE  CANON 

papal  edition.  We  must  remember,  however,  that  the  Council 
of  Trent  was  no  general  council.  So  much  for  the  Church  of 
Rome.  Its  position  received  a  curious  side-light  from  Sixtus  of 
Siena  twenty  years  after  the  council.  Sixtus  in  the  year  1566 
put  the  seven  disputed  books  as  well  as  three  sections  of  the 
text  of  other  books  into  a  second-class  canon.  Antonio  a  Matre 
Dei  of  Salamanca  followed  Sixtus  in  the  year  1670  and  added 
another  passage  to  the  list. 

It  might  have  been  thought  that  the  Churches  of  the  Re- 
formation would  retain  a  free  position  over  against  the  criticism 
of  the  canon.  Not  at  all.  It  is  true  that  they  did  not  allow 
the  great  authority  of  the  Church  to  compel  their  acceptance  of 
the  books.  They  declared  that  the  free  spirit  of  the  Christian 
recognised  the  genuine  work  of  the  Divine  Spirit  in  these  holy 
books  and  in  their  use.  Yet  they  were  not  content  to  leave  the 
books  to  care  for  themselves.  They  followed  the  lead  of  Rome 
and  declared  the  whole  New  Testament  for  undoubted  scripture, 
as,  for  example,  the  Westminster  Assembly  of  1643  and  the  Swiss 
Declaration  of  Faith  of  1675.  The  latter  went  so  far  as  to  say 
that  in  the  Old  Testament  the  Hebrew  consonants  and  even — 
imagine  it — the  Masoretic  vowel-points  (or  at  least  their  force) 
were  inspired.  Thus  everything  was  slurred  over.  The  seven 
disputed  books  had  become  indisputable.  From  that  day  to  this 
the  questioning  of  the  authenticity  of  one  of  the  New  Testament 
books  has  even  in  Protestant  circles  called  forth  the  Anathema 
set  by  the  Council  of  Trent  upon  that  crime. 

In  spite  of  all  that,  there  never  was  an  authoritative, 
generally  declared  and  generally  received  canon.  To  the 
supposition  that  a  canon  exists  is  to  be  said :  firstly,  that 
the  supposed  state  of  affairs  is,  strictly  taken,  not  the  real  state 
of  affairs;  and  secondly,  that  the  thing  which  produced  the 
actual,  not  the  supposed,  state  of  affairs  was  no  single  circum- 
stance, no  historical  single  event,  but  a  series  of  causes  working 
in  one  district  in  one  way,  in  another  district,  land,  church  in 
another  way. 

The  supposed  state  of  affairs  is  not  the  real  state  of  affairs. 
In  the  Ethiopic  Church,  for  example,  we  find  in  the  manuscripts 
for  the  number  of  the  books  of  the  Bible  :  eighty-one.  Of  these, 
forty-six  belong  to  the  Old  Testament,  which  does  not  now 
concern  us.     The  New  Testament  consists  of  thirty-five  books. 


THE  AGE  OF  THEODORE  OF   MOPSUESTIA  291 

or  of  our  twenty-seven  and  of  eight  which  come  under  the  head 
of  Clement  and  the  Synodos.  That  is  a  surplus.  In  the  Syrian 
Church,  Second  Peter,  Second  and  Third  John,  Jude,  and  the 
Revelation  were  practically  no  part  of  the  New  Testament. 
Here  we  have  a  minus.  That  is  of  itself  enough.  But  it  is 
generally  supposed  that  at  least  the  great  Greek  Church,  the 
mother  of  all  Churches  except  the  Church  in  Jerusalem,  had 
and  has  the  whole  of  our  New  Testament.  In  a  way  that  might 
be  affirmed.  The  Revelation  stands  in  the  lists  of  books  on 
many  a  page.  And  it  has  been  commented  upon  at  least  by 
two  Greek  authors,  hard  put  to  it  as  we  are  when  we  try  to  say 
precisely  when  Andrew  and  Arethas  of  Caesarea  lived,  one 
probably  at  the  end  of  the  fifth  century,  the  other  possibly  at 
almost  the  same  date,  but  using  his  predecessor's  book.  But 
as  a  matter  of  fact  the  Revelation  belongs,  of  course  not  to  the 
Gospel,  but  just  as  little  to  the  Apostle  of  the  Greek  Church, 
and  only  what  is  in  the  Gospel  and  the  Apostle  is  read  in  church 
as  Holy  Scripture.  Turning  that  around  and  putting  it  blankly, 
the  Revelation  has  never  had,  has  not  to-day,  a  place  among 
the  Bible  lessons  of  the  Greek  Church. 

Further,  it  is  to  be  urged  in  the  same  direction  that  the 
Revelation  in  a  large  number  of  cases  in  the  manuscripts  which 
contain  it  does  not  stand  among  the  books  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. There  are  a  few,  comparatively  a  very  few,  Greek  manu- 
scripts which  contain  our  whole  New  Testament, — that  is  to  say, 
which  contain  the  other  books  and  the  Revelation.  But  the  other 
books  are  commonly  copied  off  without  the  Revelation.  The 
continuation  or  the  other  side  of  this  circumstance  is  to  be  found 
in  the  fact  that  Revelation  often  stands  in  the  middle  of  volumes 
that  have  no  other  biblical  contents.  We  do  not  often  find  the 
four  Gospels  or  the  Acts,  or  the  Catholic  Epistles,  or  the  Epistles 
of  Paul  in  volumes  of  profane,  that  is  to  say,  not  scripture  litera- 
ture ;  but  we  do  often  find  the  Revelation  in  such  volumes.  For 
example,  one  manuscript  contains  lives  of  saints,  the  Acts  of 
Thomas,  and  then  theological  treatises,  and  Revelation  stands 
between  the  life  of  Euphrosyne  and  an  essay  of  Basil's  on  love  to 
God.  Various  of  the  manuscripts  which  contain  only  the  Revela- 
tion are  the  quires  containing  Revelation  taken  out  from  the 
middle  of  some  such  general  theological  book  (see  pp.  369,  383). 

It  would,  I  think,  be  no  great  exaggeration  to  say  that  the 


292  THE  CANON 

printing  of  the  Greek  New  Testament  formed  the  most  important 
I  step  for  the  practical  association  of  the  Revelation  with  the  other 
books  of  the  New  Testament.  But  that  remark  must  not  be 
supposed  to  have  effect  with  the  Greek  Church.  The  printed 
New  Testaments  of  Western  Europe  had,  have  had,  have  to-day, 
so  far  as  I  can  judge  from  actual  vision,  very  little  or  almost  nothing 
to  do  with  the  Church  of  the  East.  The  printed  Gospels  and 
Apostles  have  held  the  ground  there,  neither  one  of  them  with  the 
Revelation.  And  it  is  pertinent  to  mention  here  another  thing 
which  recalls  our  earlier  allusions  to  the  reading  in  the  churches. 
During  all  the  centuries  and  still  to-day  a  number  of  books  which 
form  no  part  of  our  New  Testament  are  read  in  church  in  the 
Greek  Church  under  our  division  :  Man  to  Man.  Some  of  them, 
certainly  one  of  them,  for  I  remember  at  this  moment  John 
of  the  Ladder,  are  read  yearly  at  a  given  time,  the  Ladder  during 
Lent.  But  enough  of  this.  The  supposed  state  of  affairs  is 
not  the  real  state  of  affairs.  The  British  and  Foreign  Bible 
Society  and  the  Roman  College  for  Propagating  the  Faith  are 
gradually  spreading  abroad  our  New  Testament.  But  neither 
the  one  nor  the  other  is  a  General  Council  authorised  to  settle 
the  canon. 

No  single  historical  act  or  event  brought  about  the  supposed 
but  not  actually  universal  determination  of  the  books  which  we 
have  in  our  New  Testament  as  constituting,  they  alone  and  they 
all,  the  second  part  of  Holy  Scripture.  No  apostle,  not  even 
the  Nestor  John,  settled  the  canon.  There  was  no  settled  canon 
at  the  time  of  the  consolidation  of  the  Catholic  Church  shortly 
after  the  middle  of  the  second  century.  No  fixed  canon  guided 
the  scriptural  studies  of  the  three  hundred  and  eighteen  Fathers 
who  composed  the  Council  of  Nice.  And  all  the  few  and 
scattered  statements  and  lists  of  books  accepted  and  disputed 
and  spurious  failed  in  reality  to  secure  one  universally 
acknowledged  New  Testament  of  exactly  the  same  contents. 
Nevertheless  the  truth,  the  Church,  Christianity  cannot  be  said 
to  have  suffered  by  this  lack.  Even  fewer  books  than  the 
Syrian  Church  recognised  would  have  been  enough  to  herald 
the  teaching  of  Jesus  and  to  sustain,  so  far  as  it  was  desirable 
that  written  records  should  sustain,  the  life  that  has  flowed 
in  an  unbroken  stream  from  Jesus  until  to-day. 

Let  us  for  an  instant  press  this  thought.     The  books  that  we 


THE  AGE  OF  THEODORE  OF  MOPSUESTIA  293 

call  New  Testament  were  certainly  for  the  most  part  in  existence 
before  the  year  100.  The  Gospels  and  the  letters  of  Paul  form 
the  two  greatest  divisions  of  this  collection.  One  or  more  of  the 
Gospels  or  a  combination  of  all  four  of  them, — which  was  the  most 
decided  recognition  of  the  four, — and  some  of  the  letters  of  Paul 
were  at  an  early  date,  long  betore  the  year  200,  to  be  found 
in  the  Church  pf  every  Christian  district.  The  multiplication 
of  the  books,  both  the  recopying  repeatedly  of  one  book  and 
the  addition  in  church  after  church  of  a  new  book,  an  Epistle 
or  a  Gospel,  or  the  Acts  or  the  Revelation,  was  not  taken  in  hand 
by  a  Bible  society  or  a  council  or  a  synod,  or  even  so  far  as 
we  can  see  by  a  single  bishop,  much  as  we  may  easily  imagine 
that  one  and  another  bishop  took  especial  interest  in  having  his 
books,  the  books  used  in  his  church,  spread  abroad  through 
other  churches,  and  in  having  as  many  books  as  possible 
added  to  those  already  in  use  in  his  own  church.  Some- 
thing of  that  kind  we  saw  in  the  case  of  the  letters  of  Ignatius 
and  the  letters  about  copies  of  them  between  Philippi  and 
Smyrna  and  Antioch.  Little  by  little  the  list  of  the  books  in 
each  church  grew. 

The  Church  did  not  at  first  consider  it  necessary  to  issue  de- 
crees about  the  books.  The  books  were  something  subsidiary. 
They  were  all  good  enough.  They  were  like  daily  bread,  and  like 
rain  for  the  thirsty  land.  But  it  was  not  necessary  to  decree 
anything  about  them.  Finally,  one  and  another  really  reflected 
upon  the  matter,  and  some  lists  were  made.  Some  of  the  earlier 
lists  tried  to  be  very  precise  and  to  determine  best  books,  a  trifle 
less  good  books,  poorer  and  poorest  books.  And  then  in  later 
time  followed  lists  that  aimed  at  fulness.  The  list  that  is  named 
after  Gelasius  and  then  after  Hormisdas  might  be  entitled :  a 
list  of  the  books  which  should  form  the  library  of  the  Christian. 
Inasmuch,  however,  as  few  Christians  had  the  money  to  buy 
such  a  large  library,  we  could  name  the  list :  a  catalogue  of  the 
books  from  which  the  Christian  should  choose  his  library. 
There  was  then  no  formation  of  the  canon  in  the  sense  that 
a  general  council  took  up  the  question.  The  number  of  books 
in  the  New  Testament  simply  grew.  When  anyone  had  the 
question  as  to  the  sacred  character  of  a  book  to  decide,  he  was 
very  likely  to  ask  whether  it  was  from  an  apostle  or  not.  We 
sec  that  TertuUian,  like  others  before  him,  succeeds  in  agreeing 


294  THE  CANON 

to  Mark  and  Luke  by  the  connection  of  the  one  with  Peter  and 
of  the  other  with  Paul.  And  this  same  TertulUan,  much  as 
he  likes  Hebrews,  lets  it  stand  aside  because  its  author,  whom 
he  may  well  have  rightly  thought  to  be  Barnabas,  was  not  a 
Twelve-Apostle  and  not  Paul  the  special  apostle.  Many  another 
reason  came  into  play  at  one  time  and  at  another,  in  one  place 
and  the  other.  A  book  favoured  Gnosticism,  therefore  it 
certainly  was  not  sacred.  A  book  used  an  apocryphal  book, 
therefore  it  could  not  be  received.  There  was  no  general  rule 
that  everywhere  held  good. 

At  the  present  time,  with  our  clearer  view  of  ancient  history, 
it  is  necessary  to  make  a  distinction  between  the  contents  and 
meaning  of  three  terms :  truth,  inspiration,  canon.  Many 
Christians  have  nailed  themselves  to  the  word  canon,  and  to 
the  thought  that  in  some  mysterious  way  during  the  early  second 
century  the  Spirit  of  God  gathered  precisely  our  New  Testament, 
from  Matthew  to  Revelation,  into  one  single  volume, — a  large 
roll  that  would  have  made, — and  that  since  that  time  the  whole 
Christian  Church  has  held  fast  to  just  this  book.  We  have  seen 
that  this  notion  has  not  the  least  basis  in  history,  that  the  facts 
were  of  a  totally  different  character.  Such  persons  are  not  a 
little  inclined,  if  one  calls  attention  to  the  state  of  the  case, 
to  fall  back  upon  the  thought  of  inspiration.  Their  theory  is 
that  God  caused  these  words  to  be  written,  and  that  by  a  positive 
necessity  of  the  course  of  events  He  then  took  care  that  they 
should  be  gathered  together  into  the  one  collection.  This 
theory  is  as  a  theory  beautiful,  and  it  has  been  a  comfort  to 
many  a  Christian.  But  it  fails  to  agree  with  what  really  took 
place.  We  see  by  turning  back  the  pages  of  the  years  that 
God  simply  did  not,  in  the  way  supposed,  have  the  books 
collected.  We  say :  Man  proposes,  God  disposes.  We  might 
here  say  :  Man  imagines,  God  did.  I  believe  that  God  watched 
over  every  step  in  the  paths  of  the  early  Christians,  but  He  had 
no  thought  of  this  theory  of  inspiration  and  of  canon.  If  any- 
one be  then  inclined  to  say  that  this  puts  an  end  to  all  faith 
in  the  Scriptures,  he  may  reassure  himself  with  the  reflection 
that  when  God  makes  nuts,  the  point  is  not  the  shell  of  the  nut, 
but  the  kernel.  If  God  sends  the  truth  to  men,  the  thing  that 
He  cares  for,  the  thing  that  His  Spirit  watches  over,  is  the  truth. 
H;e    saw    to    it    that    the    early    Christians,    through    all    the 


THE  AGE  OF  THEODORE  OF  MOPSUESTIA  295 

vicissitudes  of  their  earthly  fortunes  and  in  spite  of  all  their 
own  human  weakness  and  fallibility,  got  the  truth  and  passed 
the  truth  along  to  us.  The  great  thing  for  us  is,  not  to  become 
excited  about  diverging  views  as  to  a  canon  and  canonicity,  but 
to  take  the  truth  and  live  in  the  truth,  and  live  the  truth  and 
impart  it  in  its  purity  to  others. 


296 


297 


THE  TEXT 


OF 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 


298 


299 


THE   TEXT. 


I. 

PAPYRUS. 

As  a  general  rule  the  mass  of  people  take  things  as  they  are. 
They  are  also  likely  to  think,  or  at  least  to  go  upon  the  sup- 
position, that  things  always  have  been  as  they  now  are.  They 
can  buy  a  New  Testament,  a  nicely  bound  one,  for  a  mere  trifle. 
It  rarely  occurs  to  them  that  six  centuries  ago  that  would  not 
have  been  possible.  Perhaps  there  are  men  who  would  be  sur- 
prised to  learn  that  Paul  and  even  Peter  and  John  and  James 
did  not  each  carry  a  little  New  Testament  in  his  girdle.  Yet  it 
is  not  strange  that  the  knowledge  of  just  what  Christians  in  the 
early  ages  were  and  did  and  had,  should  not  be  the  common 
property  of  the  unlearned.     Externals  are  not  the  main  thing. 

Let  us  go  back  to  the  first  century,  to  the  days  of  Jesus. 
The  only  time  that  we  hear  of  Jesus  WTiting  is  in  the  story  about 
the  woman  taken  in  adultery.  He  wrote  upon  the  ground,  as  if 
He  did  not  know  that  the  scribes  and  Pharisees  were  near  Him 
and  were  talking.  He  looked  up  and  spoke  to  them,  and  again 
He  wrote  upon  the  ground.  Perhaps  He  only  drew  circles  and 
made  figures  of  various  forms  with  His  fingers  in  the  sand.  It 
has  been  thought  that  He  may  have  written  the  sins  of  the 
accusers.  But  we  do  not  know.  If  Jesus  ever  wrote  anything. 
He  may  have  written  as  the  Arabs  write  to-day,  simply  holding  a 
piece  of  paper  in  His  left  hand  and  writing  as  we  do  with  the 
right  hand.  However  that  may  be,  Jesus  did  not  write  the  New 
Testament.     So  far  as  we  know.  He  did  not  write  a  word  of  it. 

It  is  not  only  not  impossible,  but  it  is  even  quite  likely  that 
various  people  had  written  down  some  things  that  are  in  our 
Gospels  before  the  authors  of  these  Gospels  began  their  work.    We 


300  THE  TEXT 

do  not  need  to  deal  with  them.  We  have  enough  to  do  with  the 
books  of  the  New  Testament.  It  is  possible  that  some  of  Paul's 
letters  were  the  first  documents  that  were  written  that  we  now 
have  in  our  New  Testament.  Here  we  must  observe  how 
strangely  history  repeats  itself  in  varying  forms.  The  older  men 
of  to-day  grew  up  at  a  time  at  which  most  men  wrote  for  them- 
selves what  they  wished  to  entrust  to  paper.  To-day,  however, 
everyone  is  eager  to  have  a  stenographer  with  a  writing  machine, 
or  to  tell  his  thoughts  to  a  grammophone  and  hand  that  over  to 
his  type-writing  clerk.  At  Paul's  day,  much  as  is  the  case  to-day 
in  the  East  and  in  the  South,  even  men  who  could  write  were  in 
the  habit  of  having  scribes  to  do  the  drudgery  of  writing  for  them. 
If  a  man  were  not  rich,  he  might  have  a  young  friend  or  a  pupil 
who  was  ready  to  wield  the  pen  for  him.  It  comports  less  with 
the  dignity  of  age  in  the  East  to  write.  The  old  man  strokes  his 
beard  and  dictates  his  words  to  the  scribe.  That  is  what  Paul 
did,  although  I  do  not  know  whether  or  not  he  had  the  beard 
which  Christian  art  gives  him.  He  had  a  good  reason  for  using 
another's  hand,  for  his  eyes  were  weak.  The  Epistle  to  the 
Galatians  was  an  exception.  His  delicacy  forbade  him  to  dictate 
such  a  scolding  letter.  That  was  a  matter  between  him  and  the 
Galatians  alone.  Let  us  turn  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans. 
For  our  purpose  one  Epistle  is  as  good  as  another,  and  which 
one  could  be  better  than  this  chief  Epistle  ?  It  was  Tertius  who 
wrote  it,  if  the  sixteenth  chapter  belongs  to  it.  Timothy  and 
Lucius,  and  Jason,  and  Sosipater  were  probably  all  sitting  around 
Paul  and  Tertius  at  Corinth  or  at  Cenchrea  when  Tertius  wrote 
their  greetings  in  i62i,  and  he  added  his  own  before  he  went  on 
to  name  Gaius. 

When  Paul  told  Tertius  that  he  wished  to  write  a  letter  by 
Tertius'  hand,  the  first  thing  that  Tertius  had  to  do  was  to  get 
pens  and  ink  and  paper.  He  may  well  have  had  ink  at  hand, 
possibly  hanging  in  his  girdle,  a  bottle  of  ink  made  from  oak-galls. 
If  he  could  find  them,  he  certainly  prepared  three  or  four  pens  so 
as  not  to  keep  Paul  waiting  while  he  mended  pens.  Of  course, 
these  were  not  steel  pens.  The  metal  pens  in  ancient  times 
were  probably  chiefly  intended  to  make  a  fine  show  on  a  rich 
man's  table.  For  actual  work  a  reed  pen  was  used.  A  scholar 
once  wrote  that  the  bad  writing  in  a  certain  New  Testament 
manuscript  was  probably  due  to  its  having  been  written  with  a 


PAPYRUS  301 

reed  pen  instead  of  with  a  stylus.  But  you  cannot  write  with 
ink  with  a  stylus,  and  our  most  exquisite  manuscripts  were 
written  with  reed  pens;  and  some  people  draw  daintily  to-day 
with  reed  pens.  Tertius  will  therefore  have  cut  half  a  dozen 
reed  pens  and  laid  them  at  his  side  ready  for  use. 

The  paper  that  he  got  was  what  was  called  papyrus,  which  is 
only  the  word  paper  in  another  shape.  The  reeds  for  the  pens 
came  from  the  marshes  or  river  or  sea  edges,  and  the  paper 
came  from  the  marshes  and  rivers  too.  Papyrus  is  a  plant  that 
one  can  often  find  in  well  appointed  parks.  In  the  parks  it  is 
four  or  five  feet  high.  If  I  am  not  mistaken  I  saw  it  fifteen  feet 
high  at  the  Arethusa  spring  at  Syracuse.  It  has  a  three-cornered 
stem  which  is  of  pith,  with  vertical  cell-pipes,  and  the  sides  are 
covered  by  a  thin  green  skin.  There  are  no  joints.  At  the  top 
is  a  large  inverted  tassel  of  grass-like  hair  like  the  crest  for  a 
helmet.  The  great  place  for  papyrus  in  ancient  times  was  Egypt, 
although  European  rivers,  for  example,  the  Anapo  near  Syracuse, 
also  produced  it.  The  pith  stem  was  cut  crosswise  into  lengths 
of  fifteen  or  twenty  centimetres  according  to  wish,  and  then  cut 
lengthwise  into  thin  flat  strips  like  tape.  These  tape-like  strips 
were  laid  vertically  to  the  edge  of  the  table  side  by  side  till  there 
were  enough  for  a  leaf  of  the  desired  size.  Then  other  strips 
were  laid  across  them,  that  is  to  say,  horizontally,  or  running  with 
the  edge  of  the  table.  Between  the  two  layers  was  a  thin  glue 
or  paste.  These  leaves  were  pressed,  so  that  the  strips  should 
all  stick  flat  together,  and  left  to  dry.  The  drying  is  easy  in 
Egypt.  Things  dry  almost  before  they  have  come  to  perceive 
that  they  are  wet.  The  dried  leaves  were  a  trifle  rough.  For 
the  thread-like  walls  of  those  longitudinal  cells  often  rose  above 
the  surface.  For  nice  paper  the  surface  was  then  smoothed  off, 
it  may  be  with  pumice-stone  or  with  an  ink-fish's  bone,  or  it 
was  hammered.  It  was  a  very  good  surface  to  write  upon,  not 
unlike  birch  bark,  which  many  readers  will  know  from  the 
Adirondacs  or  Maine  or  Canada. 

It  has  sometimes  been  supposed  that  all  papyrus  leaves, 
that  is,  all  leaves  of  paper  made  from  papyrus,  were  of  the 
same  size.  That  was  not  the  case.  A  scholar  explained  that 
Second  John  and  Third  John  were  just  that  long,  because  no 
more  would  go  upon  the  papyrus  leaf  on  which  they  were 
written.     That    theory   neglected    the    size   of    the   writing.     I 


302  THE  TEXT 

write  on  a  half  foolscap  page,  21  x  16.3  centimetres  1200  or 
even  1700  or  1800  words,  whereas  people  who  write  larger  put 
fewer  words  on  such  a  page,  perhaps  200  or  300.  But  that 
theory  also  failed  to  observe  that  the  papyrus  lengths  could  be 
cut  at  will ;  and  as  for  that,  as  we  shall  see  in  a  moment,  if  a  man 
had  wished  for  a  papyrus  leaf  six  metres  each  way  it  would  have 
been  easy  to  paste  the  leaves  together  and  reach  those  dimensions. 
Let  us  go  back  to  Tertius.  Paul  will  have  told  him  that  he 
intended  to  write  a  long  letter,  and  Tertius  will  have  bought  a 
number  of  good-sized  leaves,  not  ladies'  note-paper,  but  a  business 
quarto  probably.  It  is  even  possible  that  he  bought  at  once  a 
roll  that  was  about  as  large  as  he  thought  would  be  necessary. 
If  so,  that  roll  was  made,  as  he  could  have  made  it  himself,  by 
pasting  the  single  leaves  together.  If  the  roll  proved  too  long  he 
could  cut  the  rest  of  it  off.  If  it  were  too  short,  he  could  paste 
as  many  more  leaves  on  to  it  as  he  liked.  Tertius  began  to  write 
at  the  left  end  of  the  roll,  if  he  bought  the  leaves  ready  pasted 
together.  That  is  to  say,  when  he  began  to  write  he  turned  the 
roll  so  that  the  part  to  be .  unrolled  was  at  his  right  hand.  If 
Paul  had  wished  him  to  write  Hebrew, — Paul  could  have 
written  Hebrew,  I  question  whether  Tertius  could  have, — he 
would  have  turned  the  roll  upside  down  and  begun  to  write  with 
the  part  to  be  unrolled  at  his  left  hand.  He  probably  wrote  in 
columns  that  were  about  as  broad  as  a  finger  is  long.  That  is  an 
uncertain  measure.  So  is  the  breadth  of  the  columns.  But 
when  the  roll  was  already  made  up  and  had  its  curves  set  it  was 
not  so  easy  to  write  a  broad  column.  And,  besides,  the  narrow 
columns  were  easier  to  read. 

So  Tertius  began :  "  Paul  a  servant  of  Jesus  Christ,  called 
to  be  an  apostle."  That  Epistle  was  not  written  at  one  sitting. 
It  is  much  more  likely  to  have  been  written  at  twenty  or  thirty 
sittings.  In  the  East  there  is  less  hurry  than  in  the  West. 
And  Paul  had  to  weave  his  tent-cloth.  But  at  last  the  end 
came:  "To  whom  be  glory  unto  the  ages  of  the  ages.  Amen." 
One  would  like  to  know  whether  Tertius  appreciated  that 
Epistle.  Doubtless  he  did,  as  well  as  one  could  then.  But 
he  could  not  value  it  as  we  do  after  these  centuries,  during 
which  it  has  instructed  and  warned  and  chided  and  comforted 
hundreds  of  thousands  of  Christians.  And  after  it  was  done 
Phoebe  carried  it  to  Rome,  always  supposing  that  the  sixteenth 


PAPYRUS  303 

chapter  was  written  at  the  same  time  with  the  first  fourteen,  a 
question  which  does  not  now  concern  us.  It  is  not  hard  to 
look  in  upon  the  Christians  at  Rome  when  the  Epistle  reaches 
that  city.  Phoebe  gives  it  to  one  of  the  chief  men  among 
the  Christians.  At  the  first  possible  moment,  probably  on  a 
Lord's  Day — for  they  would  not  think  of  calling  that  day  by 
the  Jewish  name  of  Sabbath,  as  some  English-speaking  people 
do  ;  Sabbath  is  the  name  of  Saturday — on  the  Lord's  Day, 
because  on  that  day  everybody,  or  at  least  many  of  the  Christians, 
could  take  the  time  for  a  long  meeting,  they  read  the  Epistle 
before  the  assembled  Church.  Did  they  read  it  all  through  at 
one  meeting  ?  It  seems  to  me  likely  that  they  did.  They  will 
have  wished  to  know  all  that  Paul  had  to  say. 

The  next  question  that  arises  for  us  is  not,  whether  the 
Roman  Christians  then  proceeded  to  take  to  heart  all  the  good 
advice  that  Paul  gave  them.  That  belongs  to  another  depart- 
ment of  theology.  What  we  wish  to  know  is,  what  they  did  with 
the  Epistle,  with  this  long  letter,  after  they  had  read  it  that 
first  time.  One  thing  is  clear.  They  did  not  then  tear  it  up 
and  throw  it  away  because,  as  people  to-day  so  often  say  of 
letters  just  received  and  at  once  destroyed,  they  knew  all  that 
was  in  it.  It  is  actually  possible  to  read  in  scientific  books  that 
doubtless  the  early  Christian  Churches  read  the  letters  sent 
to  them  by  the  apostles  once  or  twice  and  then  put  them 
away.  The  impression  given  is,  that  they  then  perhaps  for 
months  and  years  did  not  read  them  again.  To  my  mind  it 
is  not  easy  to  find  anything  more  unreasonable  and  improbable 
than  that. 

The  early  Christians  were  largely  poor  people,  many  of  them 
not  well  educated,  many  of  them  certainly  with  no  more 
education  than  the  school  of  hard  living  and  hard  work  had 
bestowed  upon  them.  There  were  then  no  newspapers.  What 
men  knew  of  the  events  of  the  day  had  to  be  gained  almost 
altogether  from  hearsay.  There  were  also,  and  particularly  for 
poor  people,  even  if  they  knew  how  to  --ead,  but  few  books  to 
be  had.  And  there  were  still  fewer  Christian  books.  Christians 
who  could  write  books  were  still  few.  The  Christians  had  as 
yet  no  great  motive  for  writing  books.  One  thing  filled  their 
thoughts :  It  will  soon  be  Heaven.  They  did  not  think  that 
this  earth  had  still  a  long  lease  to  run.     If  we  could  imagine 


j04  THE  TEXT 

that  one  of  them  had  said :  I  am  going  to  write  a  big  book, 
we  should  at  once  also  imagine  that  his  brother  said :  What  is 
the  use?  The  trumpet  will  sound  before  you  are  half  done. 
And,  further,  there  were  not  many  preachers.  It  is  true  that 
Paul's  advice  to  the  Corinthians  seems  to  imply  an  extremely 
eager  participation  of  anybody  and  everybody  in  the  church 
services.  Yet  churches  are  different  in  such  respects.  Every 
city  had  not  such  enterprising  rhetorical  and  prophetical  and 
ecstatic  members  as  Corinth  had.  And  times  differ.  Corinth 
may  well  afterwards  have  had  its  periods  of  greater  quiet  on  the 
part  of  the  single  Christians  in  the  church  gatherings.  Summing 
it  all  up,  the  early  Christian  churches  will  certainly  have 
welcomed  new  reading  matter,  new  writings  that  they  could 
read  in  church.  That  does  not  imply  that  they  looked  upon 
this  letter  and  such  letters  as  equivalent  to  the  Old  Testament. 
Not  in  the  least.  This  letter  was  a  message  to  them  all  from 
a  well-known  preacher,  and  therefore  it  could  be  read  in  church. 
A  part  of  this  letter  would  have  been,  will  have  been,  for  them 
like  a  sermon  from  Paul. 

It  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  they  will  every  Sunday  from 
that  first  Sunday  onwards  have  read  the  whole  Epistle  through. 
Nor  can  we  be  sure  that  on  every  single  Sunday  they  read 
some  parts  of  it.  But  it  seems  to  me  that  we  may  set  down 
two  things  as  quite  certain  under  such  circumstances.  One  is, 
that  at  the  first,  as  a  necessary  following  up  of  the  first  reading, 
the  church  at  Rome  will  have  soon  and  repeatedly  read 
and  discussed  given  parts  of  the  Epistle.  The  other  is,  that 
even  after  time  had  passed,  especially  after  Paul  had  been 
there  twice  and  had  died  as  a  martyr,  a  year,  two  years, 
ten  years  later  they  will  at  least  occasionally  have  again  read 
this  Epistle,  section  after  section.  That  thought  presents,  how- 
ever, various  further  considerations  for  us  touching  the  text. 
We  are  not  now  studying  directly  Church  history,  but  book 
history.  If  you  please,  it  is  the  book  division  of  Church 
history.  We  are  to  fix  our  eyes  on  that  roll  of  papyrus.  It  is 
a  very  fair  sized  roll,  for  Tertius  in  writing  a  letter  that  was  to 
be  read  to  the  church  was  not  likely  to  use  a  diamond  size  of 
handwriting.  And,  besides,  only  one  side  of  the  roll,  the  inside, 
was  written  upon.  That  was  what  we  may  call  the  "  right  side  " 
of  the  papyrus.     It  was  the  side  on  which  the  strips  of  papyrus 


PAPYRUS  305 

ran  across  the  page  from  side  to  side,  and  not  up  and  down  the 
page  from  top  to  bottom. 

One  of  the  things  to  be  considered  is  the  fact  that  in  a 
large  city  like  Rome,  even  at  that  early  date,  the  groups  of 
Christians  will  have  been  somewhat  scattered.  The  Christians 
to  whom  Paul  wrote  in  this  Epistle  are  evidently  for  the  most 
part  not  Jewish  Christians  but  heathen  Christians,  Christians 
who  had  before  that  time  been  heathen.  Therefore  they  will 
not  have  all  been  living  close  together  in  the  Jewish  quarter  of 
the  city,  as  might  have  been  the  case  if  they  had  all  been  born 
Jews.  In  consequence  of  this  there  will  have  been  meetings 
of  ten  or  twenty  or  fifty  who  lived  near  each  other  on  the  week- 
day evenings,  on  Wednesday  and  Friday  as  a  rule.  Now  it  is 
in  every  way  to  be  supposed  that  sometimes  Paul's  letter  was 
carried  to  one  and  another  of  these  little  meetings,  so  that  it 
could  be  read,  that  some  passage  from  it  could  be  read  and 
discussed  there.  We  can  hear  the  man  who  had  the  roll  saying 
to  the  one  who  carries  it  away  from  him  to  the  little  meeting : 
Take  care  of  it.  Do  not  let  it  be  torn.  Be  sure  to  bring  it 
back  in  good  order.  That  was  very  necessary,  for  papyrus  is  a 
frail  stuff. 

We  pass  over  a  year  or  two  and  look  at  our  roll.  That 
papyrus,  as  we  saw,  was  made  of  tape-like  strips  of  vegetable 
fibre  laid  crosswise,  at  right  angles  to  each  other.  When  it 
dried,  the  fibre  was,  of  course,  stiifer  than  when  green.  The 
members  of  the  church  kept  the  book  dry,  and  the  fibres 
will  have  only  grown  the  more  stiff  and  the  more  set  in  their 
ways,  in  their  curled-up  way  in  the  roll.  The  Epistle  had  to  be 
kept  dry,  for  it  would  have  grown  mouldy  if  allowed  to  be  damp, 
and  the  ink  would  have  been  spoiled  or  printed  off  on  the 
papyrus  against  the  columns.  The  roll  has  been  unrolled  and 
rolled  up  again.  When  the  reader  read  the  beginning  of  it  and 
went  on  towards  the  middle  he  rolled  up  with  his  left  hand  the 
part  he  had  read,  so  as  to  able  to  hold  it  well  for  the  further 
reading.  When,  as  must  often  have  happened,  the  part  read 
was  well  on  in  the  roll,  there  was  quite  an  amount  of  unrolling 
with  the  right  hand  and  rolling  up  with  the  left  hand  to  be  done 
before  the  passage  was  reached.  If  the  roll  had  been  lying  still 
in  the  room  of  a  careful  scholar,  who  only  unrolled  it  at  rare 
intervals  and  then  always  with  great  care,  it  might  have  lived 
20 


306  THE  TEXT 

out  these  two  years  without  much  change.  Instead  of  that  it 
had  been  carried  to  the  meetings.  It  had  been  often  opened 
and  re-rolled,  and  certainly  often  not  with  the  greatest  care. 
Curious  people,  even  the  unlearned  who  could  not  read,  will  in 
the  small  meetings  have  fingered  the  roll.  There  are  many 
people,  even  people  who  can  read  and  write,  who  do  not  think 
they  have  seen  a  thing  until  they  have  put  their  fingers  on  it, 
as  if  they  were  blind ;  in  this  way  our  roll  has  been  felt  and 
pinched  by  many  hands. 

Here  and  there  one  of  the  stiff  fibres,  you  might  call  it 
a  tiny  stick,  has  broken  when  it  was  rolled  up,  like  a  piece 
of  wood  broken  across  your  knee.  Another  fibre  has  broken 
at  the  edge  when  somebody  pinched  it,  or  perhaps  when 
the  reader  grasped  it  too  firmly  while  busy  rendering  the  im- 
passioned sentences  of  Paul.  No  wonder  that  the  reader  forgot 
the  papyrus  while  reading,  let  us  say,  what  we  call  the  eighth 
chapter  of  Romans,  for  Tertius  will  not  have  numbered  any 
chapters.  But  it  was  also  no  wonder  that  then  those  little 
papyrus  fibre  sticks  broke.  Papyrus  breaks  rather  than  tears. 
Another  fibre  breaks  alongside  of  the  first  one,  and  after  a  few 
have  broken  in  the  direction  of  the  writing,  the  first  thing  you 
know  some  of  the  up  and  down  fibres  break  and  very  soon 
there  is  a  rough  hole  Hke  a  little  square  or  a  parallelogram  in 
the  letter.  If  that  happens  in  the  vacant  space  between  two 
columns  of  writing,  it  does  not  do  much  harm  for  the  moment. 
If,  however,  it  happens  in  the  middle  of  a  line,  then  a  part  of  a 
word  or  even  a  whole  word  may  be  lost,  so  that  the  reader  will 
have  to  guess  at  it  from  the  sense  of  the  rest. 

In  time  the  leading  men  of  the  church  see  that  if  they 
wish  in  the  years  to  come  to  know  what  the  letter  contains, 
they  must  copy  it  off  before  it  falls  altogether  to  pieces.  And 
there  may  before  this  time  have  been  another  reason  for 
copying  the  Epistle.  A  Christian  from  Corinth  or  Ephesus 
or  Alexandria  may  have  been  at  Rome  on  business  and  heard 
of  this  letter  and  heard  or  read  it,  and  then  have  wished  to 
take  a  copy  of  it  back  with  him  for  the  church  at  home. 
Thus  in  one  way  or  the  other  the  letter  comes  to  be  copied 
off  for  Rome  or  for  another  church.  The  Epistle  is  written 
again.  This  time  Paul  is  not  dictating,  but  the  man  writing 
has  a  roll  before  his  eyes.     And  this  man  writing  is  not  Tertius, 


PAPYRUS  307 

but  some  one  in  the  church  at  Rome.  He  will  doubtless 
make  some  mistakes  in  copying,  but  we  shall  not  trouble  about 
them  at  this  moment.  We  wish  to  know  what  becomes  of 
the  original  letter.  From  the  point  of  view  of  an  antiquarian 
or  of  a  relic  hunter  of  to-day,  one  would  say  that  the  papyrus 
roll  which  Paul  had  sent  to  Rome  would  have  been  treasured 
most  carefully  by  the  church.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  nothing 
of  that  kind  is  likely  to  have  happened. 

Let  us  put  the  matter  down  as  precisely  as  possible,  remember 
ing  all  the  while  that  we  have  no  exact  knowledge  of  the  details, 
and  that  the  years  may  be  quite  different.  Paul  probably  dictated 
Romans  to  Tertius  at  Corinth  in  the  year  53  or  54.  He  was 
probably  for  the  first  time  a  prisoner  at  Rome  about  57  to  59. 
Whether  carried  a  second  time  as  a  prisoner  to  Rome  from  the 
West  or  from  the  East,  or  whether  he  was  arrested  while  visiting 
that  city,  he  appears  to  have  died  there  as  a  martyr  in  the  year 
64.  Considering  the  frailty  of  papyrus,  it  is  in  every  way  likely 
that  the  Epistle  was  copied  off  long  before  the  death  of  Paul. 
Let  us,  however,  give  it,  the  original,  a  long  life,  and  say  that  it 
was  copied  off  for  the  Romans  again  shortly  after  Paul's  death. 
We  heighten  thereby  the  value  of  that  original.  Yet  we  must 
again  say,  that  the  original  was  probably  totally  neglected  so 
soon  as  the  new  copy  was  done.  Paul  was  one  of  the  greatest 
men,  was  the  greatest  man,  among  the  Christians  in  those  years. 
But  he  did  not  stand  in  the  position  that  he  now  does.  Further, 
however,  so  far  as  we  can  see,  the  reverence  for  relics  had  not 
yet  begun  among  the  Christians.  There  was  enthusiasm  and 
zeal,  yet  they  were  directed  more  to  the  future  than  to  the  past. 
The  Christian  was  then  bent  on  doing  or  on  hoping,  not  upon 
looking  back  to  worthies  of  the  past.  We  might  almost  say  that 
the  gaze  of  the  Church  was  fixed  less  upon  Jesus  of  Nazareth 
and  more  upon  Jesus  the  Prince  that  was  soon  to  return.  The 
original  letter  written  by  the  hand  of  Tertius  to  the  Romans  was 
probably  laid  in  a  corner  and  soon  entirely  forgotten.  It  was 
old  and  time-worn.     Papyrus,  if  much  used,  is  soon  time-worn. 

We  have  spoken  of  a  letter  of  Paul's.  Of  course,  the  case 
would  have  been  much  the  same  with  a  letter  of  James'  or 
Peter's  or  John's  or  Jude's.  It  will  be  clear  that  in  Rome, 
during  the  time  to  which  we  have  referred,  there  may  have 
been  copies  received   of  one  or  more  of  the  letters  that  Paul 


308  THE  TEXT 

wrote  to  churches  farther  east,  just  as  we  supposed  that  copies 
of  Romans  might  have  been  made  for  churches  in  the  East. 
If  such  letters  reached  Rome,  the  leaders  of  the  church  will 
probably  have  kept  the  various  rolls  in  some  one  place.  Some 
one  man  is  likely  to  have  been  charged  with  the  care  of  them, 
though  it  would  be  conceivable  that  separate  persons  kept 
separate  rolls.  It  is  in  no  way  to  be  supposed  that  anyone 
in  Rome  will  have  thought  of  changing  any  words  or  cutting 
any  out  or  putting  any  in,  in  the  original  of  Paul's  letter.  So 
long  as  the  original  existed  and  was  legible,  the  church  had 
in  its  hands  precisely  the  words  that  Paul  had  dictated  to 
Tertius. 

There  are,  however,  in  the  New  Testament,  books  that  are 
not  letters.  There  is,  for  example,  the  Revelation,  to  which 
I  am  still  inclined  to  attribute  an  early  date.  It  is  a  question 
whether  or  not  we  should  here  think  of  dictation.  Were  the 
book  issued  by  John  in  the  nineties  of  the  first  century,  should 
that  some  day  be  proved,  then  we  should  at  once  say  that 
the  old  man  had  dictated  it.  But  if  it  was  written  before  the 
year  seventy,  there  is  more  possibility  that  it  should  have  been 
written  directly  by  the  author.     Yet  that  does  not  matter. 

Whether  dictated  or  whether  written  by  its  author,  this  book 
of  Revelation  does  not  seem  to  have  been  a  book  written 
from  beginning  to  end  fresh  from  the  brain  of  the  man  who 
thought  it  all  out,  who  imagined  the  scenes  depicted  in  it. 
It  is  apparently  made  upon  the  basis  of  a  Jewish  book.  The 
author  of  the  Christian  book  found  that  the  dreams  of  the 
Jewish  book  were  good,  and  he  made  a  Christian  introduction, 
an  acceptable  beginning  for  the  book,  and  a  like  ending,  and 
he  added  or  took  away  or  rearranged  and  modified  the  Jewish 
accounts  to  suit  Christian  needs.  The  Jewish  Christians  at 
Jerusalem  before  the  year  70  doubtless  fulfilled,  like  James 
and  Paul,  their  religious  duty  as  Jews.  They  were  still  good 
Jews  although  they  were  Christians.  They  still  looked  upon 
Christianity  as  the  normal  continuation  of  Judaism.  For  them 
Judaism  was  Christianity.  The  Jews  who  were  not  Christians 
simply  failed  properly  to  understand  what  Judaism  was  and 
should  be.  Thus,  then,  the  Christian  who  published  this  book 
seems  merely  to  have  made  an  enlarged  and  corrected  and 
re-wrought  edition  of  an  existing  Jewish   book.     The   book   is 


PAPYRUS  309 

not  a  whit  the  worse  for  that.  The  figures  and  scenes  are  as 
vivid  and  the  descriptions  are  as  telling  whether  first  conceived 
by  a  Jew  who  was  still  only  an  old-fashioned  Jew,  or  by  a 
Jew  who  had  become  a  Christian.  So  or  so  this  book  of  visions 
and  dreams  is  written  upon  a  roll  of  papyrus. 

Tertius  wrote  Romans  for  Paul  for  the  Christians  at  Rome. 
This  book  of  Revelation  was  written  by  some  one  named  John 
for  seven  churches  in  Asia  Minor :  Ephesus,  Smyrna,  Pergamon, 
Thyatira,  Sardes,  Philadelphia,  and  Laodicea.  It  would,  of 
course  have  been  possible  for  John  to  write  but  a  single  copy 
and  to  send  it  around  to  the  seven  churches  like  a  book 
from  a  circulating  library,  leaving  it,  let  us  say,  four  weeks  in 
each  church,  so  that  in  twenty-eight  weeks,  a  little  more 
than  half  a  year,  all  would  have  had  it.  The  churches  are 
not  so  very  far  apart.  I  went  with  the  train  from  Smyrna  to 
Ephesus  in  2  J  hours  and  returned  in  the  afternoon.  A  slow 
little  steamer  carried  me  from  Smyrna  in  a  few  hours  to 
Dikeli,  from  which  place  I  walked  during  the  evening,  and, 
after  a  night  on  the  sand,  by  seven  o'clock  the  next  morning 
to  Pergamon.  From  Pergamon  a  half  a  day's  walk  took  me 
to  Soma,  where  a  train  passing  through  Thyatira  returned 
me  to  Smyrna  in  a  little  more  than  half  a  day.  The  other  three 
cities  lie  only  a  little  to  the  east  of  these  four.  John  could 
easily  have  sent  the  letter  around  in  a  single  copy.  We  might 
think  that  that  was  meant  by  the  words  in  Rev.  i^^  "Write 
what  you  see  into  a  book,  and  send  it  to  the  seven  churches." 
And  the  fact  that  the  letters  to  the  seven  churches  all  follow, 
Rev.  2^  to  3^2,  might  point  to  the  same  thing. 

It  would  be  possible  to  suppose  that  if  a  copy  were  written  for 
each  church,  if  seven  copies  were  written,  each  copy  would  have 
had  but  one  letter  in  it,  the  copy  for  Ephesus  only  the  letter 
to  Ephesus,  and  so  for  the  other  churches.  If,  however,  we 
reflect  upon  the  fact  that  these  letters  are  not  merely  letters 
for  seven  churches,  but  that  they  also  under  the  guise  of 
the  seven  churches  are  directed  towards  the  needs  of  Christians 
in  general  and  the  needs  of  individual  Christians  in  every 
church,  it  will,  I  think,  at  once  appear  that  it  would  not  occur 
to  John  to  send  the  book  with  but  a  single  letter  to  each  church. 
The  seven  letters  are  a  mosaic  pattern  of  Christian  life 
and   belong  together.     No  one  will  imagine,  further,  that  only 


3IO  THE  TEXT 

those  letters  and  not  the  book  of  Revelation  were  to  be  sent 
to  the  churches,  for  that  verse  says  that  John  is  to  write  in 
the  book  what  he  sees,  that  is  to  say,  the  visions  which  follow, 
and  send  it  to  the  churches.  The  short  letters  are  not  visions, 
but  messages.  And,  besides,  word  would  have  passed  quickly 
from  the  first  church  that  received  the  roll,  had  there  been 
bat  a  single  one,  and  the  other  six  churches  would  not  have 
wished  to  wait  for  weeks  and  months  to  know  what  was 
addressed  to  them  as  well  as  to  that  first  church.  We  must 
therefore  suppose  that  John  prepared  at  once  seven  copies 
of  the  Revelation  and  sent  one  to  each  church.  Should  any 
one  insist  upon  it  that  John  as  the  author  merely  wrote  one 
copy  and  then  left  the  book  to  its  fate,  no  one  would  conceive 
it  possible  that  the  seven  churches  did  not  have  copies  made 
at  once. 

We  therefore  are  now  after  this  long  discussion  in  a 
different  position  from  that  which  we  held  in  the  case  of 
Romans.  There  we  saw  at  the  first  and  for  a  while  but  one 
letter,  one  book,  in  the  hands  of  one  church.  Here  we  have 
a  book  in  seven  copies  addressed  to  seven  churches  of  varying 
moods  and  characters.  The  situation  is  slightly  different  from 
the  point  of  view  of  the  criticism  of  the  text  For  Romans 
there  was,  so  far  as  we  know,  for  a  time  but  one  authentic 
copy  which  made  its  definite  impression  of  words  and  phrases 
2nd  paragraphs  upon  the  minds  of  the  Christians  in  a  large 
city.  Many  of  the  Romans  will  have  known  very  exactly  just 
what  the  Epistle  said  touching  one  point  and  another.  Here 
there  are  seven  authentic  copies,  if  John  himself  sent  out  the 
seven.  And  if  the  churches  had  the  copies  made,  there  are 
almost  at  once  seven  copies  of  the  book.  That  will  of  itself 
have  had  perhaps  an  effect  upon  the  exactness  of  the  text. 
Copying  a  book  looks  easy,  just  as  translation  seems  easy  to 
people  who  know  nothing  about  it.  It  is  difficult  to  copy  a 
common  letter  of  four  pages  straightway  and  quickly  without 
making  a  mistake.  After  one  has  discovered  how  easy  it  is 
to  make  mistakes  in  copying,  he  will  be  ready  to  believe  that 
it  is  not  beyond  the  realm  of  possibility  that  the  text  even  in 
these  first  seven  copies  showed  trifling  differences.  We  leave  the 
book  of  Revelation  for  the  moment  and  turn  to  other  books. 

There   remain   the  four   Gospels   and    the   book    of    Acts. 


PAPYRUS  311 

Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke  with  Acts  all  show  in  one  way  a 
certain  resemblance  in  their  origin  to  the  book  of  Revelation. 
Every  one  of  them  was  written  upon  the  basis  of  an  earlier 
book,  or  of  two  or  three  earlier  books.  But  they  all  used  the 
earlier  matter  in,  it  appears,  a  much  more  independent  way 
than  Revelation  used  its  basis.  They  gave  more  of  their 
own  and  impressed  their  personality  upon  the  books  more 
decidedly.  Mark  was  doubtless  written  first.  It  is  the  smallest 
of  the  four  books.  It  may  very  well  have  been  written  at  Rome, 
and  may  also,  as  ever  busy  tradition  relates,  have  had  some 
connection  with  recollections  of  Peter's  which  he  related  to 
Mark.  Yet  if  it  had  such  a  connection  we  are  nevertheless 
not  able  to  lay  our  pointer  upon  the  words  that  depend  upon 
Peter's  memory.  Paul's  Epistles  were  sent  to  the  churches 
here  and  there,  the  Revelation  was  given  to  the  seven  churches. 
It  would  be  very  interesting  to  know  to  whom  Mark  gave  his 
Gospel.     Perhaps  to  the  church  at  Rome. 

But  to  whomsoever  he  gave  it,  it  probably  met  almost  at 
once  with  an  accident,  a  bad  accident.  I  think  it  most  likely 
that  in  the  very  first  copy  of  it,  which  was  probably  on  papyrus, 
the  last  two  or  three  columns  were  broken  off  or  torn  off  or 
cut  off  and  lost.  We  shall  come  back  to  that  at  another 
place  (see  pp.  51 1-5 13). 

Matthew's  Gospel,  or  better,  the  Gospel  according  to  Matthew, 
was  written  in  its  current  form  by  someone  who  had  Mark's  Gospel 
and  perhaps  a  book  by  Matthew,  and  it  may  be  still  some  other 
book  in  his  hands.  He  was,  this  author  was,  himself  by  origin  an 
ardent  Jew,  and  kept  referring  to  the  Old  Testament.  But  that 
does  not  suffice  to  tell  us  where  he  wrote  or  to  whom  he  gave  his 
Gospel.  Perhaps  he  wrote  somewhere  in  Asia  Minor.  Asia 
Minor,  that  Paul  had  so  vigorously  missionised,  was  a  stronghold 
of  Christianity.  Both  Mark  and  Matthew  are  likely  to  have 
been  at  once  copied  in  order  to  be  carried  to  other  churches 
besides  the  one  that  first  received  each.  There  was  nothing 
in  either  work  to  limit  its  address  or  its  use  to  a  single 
community. 

In  the  case  of  Luke  we  find  a  pleasing  personal  turn.  We 
might  say  that  the  author  was  too  modest  to  offer  his  work 
to  a  church  or  to  the  Church  in  general,  but  ventured  to 
send  it  to  his  friend  Theophilus,  always  supposing  that  this  friend 


312  THE  TEXT 

the  God-Lover  or  the  one  Loved-of-God  was  not  a  roundabout 
address  to  any  and  every  good  Christian.  Luke  is  so  evidently 
a  skilled  writer,  that  we  must  suppose  him  to  have  caused  his 
book  to  be  copied  a  number  of  times  in  spite  of  the  address 
to  a  private  person.  Where  he  first  issued  it  we  do  not  know. 
The  former  suggestion  of  Asia  Minor  for  Matthew  might  very 
well  also  be  made  for  Luke.  The  book  of  Acts  Luke  wrote 
doubtless  a  few  years  later.  Now  the  three  former  books  were 
crystallisations  of  the  gospel  that  was  preached.  They  are 
connected  with  each  other  through  their  basis,  through  the 
writings  used  in  their  composition,  so  that  they  in  general  place 
before  our  eyes  the  same  phase  of  and  largely  the  same  incidents 
in  the  life  of  Jesus  and  the  same  words  of  Jesus,  and  they 
therefore  support  each  other.  The  churches  of  the  latter 
part  of  the  first  century  that  learned  of  the  existence  of  these 
Gospels  will  have  desired  to  have  them,  so  far  as  their  means 
permitted  them  to  buy  the  rolls.  We  are  forced  to  suppose 
that  they  were  often  copied  and  were  sent  hither  and  thither 
among  the  churches,  and  in  particular  to  the  churches  near 
the  place  at  which  they  first  appeared,  and  to  the  churches  in 
the  chief  cities.  These  larger  churches  both  heard  more  quickly 
by  means  of  the  frequent  travellers  of  the  issue  of  new  books, 
and  were  more  capable  of  paying  for  good  copies  of  them. 

It  seems  to  me  not  to  be  reasonable  to  suppose  that  these  books 
lived  a  retired,  violet  like  existence,  remaining  long  unknown 
to  the  mass  of  the  churches.  It  does  not  seem  to  me  to  agree 
with  the  first  principles  of  scientific  hypothesis  to  imagine  that 
these  Gospels  did  not  exist  in  towns  from  which  we  have  received 
no  treatise  quoting  them.  We  cannot  look  for  inscriptions  for 
every  town  in  which  Christians  had  Christian  books,  giving 
every  ten  years  from  70  to  200  the  catalogue  of  those  at 
command.  That  means  for  textual  criticism  that  we  must 
assume  before  the  end  of  the  first  century  the  widespread 
existence  of  a  number  of  copies  of  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke. 
The  interest  in  the  book  of  Acts  will  have  been  by  no  means 
so  great  as  the  interest  in  the  Gospels,  and  it  will  not  have 
been  copied  anything  like  so  often. 

The  Gospel  of  John  stands  by  itself  The  question  as  to 
its  author  cannot  here  be  treated  at  length.  I  am  of  the  opinion 
either  that  John   the  Twelve- Apostle   dictated  it   to  a  disciple 


PAPYRUS  313 

shortly  before  his  death,  or  that  some  such  disciple  who  had 
been  most  intimately  allied  to  John  wrote  the  Gospel  soon  after 
the  death  of  the  apostle.  Now  it  is  interesting  to  observe  that 
in  this  case  we  have  a  tradition  that  upon  the  face  of  it  does 
not  look  improbable.  Tradition  says  that  John  dictated  the 
Gospel  to  a  disciple  of  his  named  Prochorus.  We  see  this 
tradition  given  pictorially  in  a  clear  way  in  many  a  manuscript 
containing  this  Gospel.  In  one  of  the  upper  corners,  usually 
in  the  one  at  the  right  hand  of  the  picture,  either  a  hand  or  rays 
come  forth  from  a  cloud  to  indicate  the  presence  and  activity 
of  the  Divine  Spirit.  John  stands  before  us  raising  his  left  hand 
towards  that  divine  manifestation  in  order  to  receive  the  heavenly 
inspiration,  and  stretching  his  right  hand  down  toward  Prochorus, 
who  is  seated  at  the  left  hand  and  writing  the  Gospel :  "  In  the 
beginning  was  the  Word."  There  is  nothing  like  this  that  often 
occurs  in  the  manuscripts  for  the  other  evangelists.  I  know 
of  nothing  thus  far  that  should  make  it  more  impossible  for 
Prochorus  to  have  written  the  Fourth  Gospel  at  John's  dictation 
than  for  Tertius  to  have  written  Romans  at  Paul's  dictation. 
But  we  have  no  positive  knowledge  of  the  fact. 

This  Gospel  has,  further,  another  peculiarity  in  reference  to  its 
authorship,  for  it  contains  at  the  close  one  (or  two)  verses  evidently 
added  by  another  hand.  John  21-*  (and  ^5)  look  as  if  they  had 
been  added  by  the  chief  men  in  the  church  which  first  received 
this  Gospel.  In  modern  phrase,  these  would  be  the  elders  or 
the  clergy  of  the  church  in  which  John  worshipped.  In  the 
verses  before  these  the  Twelve- Apostle  John  has  been  mentioned 
as  the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved^  about  whom  Peter  asked. 
Thereupon  the  twenty-fourth  verse  adds :  "  This  is  the  disciple 
who  testifies  touching  these  things,  and  who  wrote  these  things : 
and  we  know  that  his  testimony  is  true."  The  twenty-fifth  verse 
says  :  "And  there  are  many  other  things  which  Jesus  did,  which, 
if  they  were  WTitten  one  by  one,  I  do  not  think  that  the  world 
itself  would  hold  the  books  written."  Now  this  verse  might 
be  from  John.  That  twenty-fourth  verse  might  have  beeq 
originally  added  by  the  elders  at  the  side  of  the  column  near 
V.23  and  then  have  been  put  into  the  column  itself  before 
v.25  by  a  later  scribe.  Those  words  are  almost  like  a  receipt 
for  the  Gospel  on  the  part  of  the  community.  For  textual 
criticism  this   declaration   gives   in  a   way   a  surety  for   careful 


314  THE  TEXT 

attention  to  the  words  of  the  Gospel  in  that  first  church.  We 
shall  find  that  the  text  of  this  Gospel  is  in  some  ways  in  better 
condition  than  that  of  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke,  because  it 
stood  alone,  and  because  it  was  not  so  much  dependent  upon 
written  sources. 

Ancient  Handwriting. 

It  is  not  uninteresting  to  ask  what  kind  of  writing  was  probably 
used  in  the  first  copies  of  those  New  Testament  books.  At 
that  time  the  main  kinds  of  handwriting  were  two :  uncial 
writing  and  cursive  writing.  We  could  call  them  capitals  and  a 
running  hand.  The  capitals  were  used  for  books  that  were  well 
gotten  up,  for  fine  editions.  In  such  books  the  words  were  all 
written  in  capital  letters,  word  joined  on  to  word  without  break, 
much  as  if  we  were  to  WRITEINENGLISHTHUS.  It  was 
then  easy  enough  to  tell  what  the  letters  were,  but  it  required  a 
quick  eye  and  a  good  head  to  tell  quickly  at  some  places  just 
how  the  words  were  to  be  divided  off,  what  belonged  together 
and  what  was  to  be  separated.  At  the  first  moment  a  Christian, 
thinking  of  the  pretty  editions  of  the  Bible  that  we  have,  would 
say  that  Tertius  when  he  wrote  Paul's  letter  to  the  Romans  must 
surely  have  used  these  large  and  fine  letters.  But  those  who  know 
what  people  at  that  day  were  likely  to  write  would  say  no.  That 
was  a  letter  that  Tertius  was  writing,  even  if  it  was  a  very  large 
letter.  It  was  an  essay,  a  treatise,  an  article ;  but  it  was  the 
habit  then,  as  it  often  has  been  since,  upon  occasion  to  write 
such  an  essay  in  the  form  of  a  letter.  And  such  a  letter  would 
not  be  written  in  the  formal  stiff  capitals,  but  in  the  running  hand. 
A  running  hand  was  just  what  the  name  says,  handwriting  written 
at  a  run,  written  in  a  hurry,  as  so  many  people  write  to-day.  The 
letters  were  at  first,  we  might  say,  just  like  those  capital  letters. 
But  the  swiftness  of  the  strokes  had  impaired  the  form  of  the 
letters.  If  we  look  at  many  a  handwriting  that  we  see  to-day  and 
ask  how  much  a  ^  or  an  fn  or  a.  u  looks  like  the  printed  form  of 
those  letters  or  like  the  forms  given  in  copy-books,  we  may 
understand  that  in  the  same  way  the  writing  that  Tertius  wrote 
in  all  probability  contained  many  strange  looking  letters.  The 
letters  will  often  have  been  written  close  together,  and  all  joined 
together  without  respect   to  the  division    between  words.     We 


PAPYRUS  315 

cannot  at  aU  tell  how  well  Tertius  was  able  to  write.  We  do  not 
know  whether  he  wrote  a  clear  hand  or  whether  he  wrote  a  bad 
hand.  The  chances  are  that  he  wrote  well.  That  is,  it  may  be, 
the  reason  why  he,  and  not  Timothy  or  Lucius  or  Jason  or 
Sosipater,  who  were  all  there  at  the  time,  was  asked  to  do  the 
writing. 

From  what  we  have  already  seen,  it  is  clear  that  we  cannot 
look  for  the  originals  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  among 
the  books  of  our  libraries.  One  could  dream  of  possibilities. 
We  might  fancy  that  one  of  the  little  letters  of  John  had  been 
slipped  into  some  box  or  laid  away  in  a  diptych,  a  little  double 
wax  tablet  like  two  slates  hinged  together,  and  that  the  box  or 
the  diptych  was  to  be  discovered  to-morrow  by  the  Austrian 
scholar  who  is  unearthing  Ephesus.  But  there  is  not  the  least 
likelihood  of  anything  of  that  kind.  The  probability  is  that  every 
vestige  of  the  original  writings  had  vanished  long  before  the  time 
of  Eusebius,  the  most  of  the  writings  before  the  year  200,  and 
many  of  them  before  the  year  100.  A  knavish  fellow  brought 
some  leaves  of  papyrus  to  England  more  than  forty  years  ago 
and  sold  them  to  an  English  merchant  who  trusted  his  word  for 
it  that  they  were  out  of  the  original  Matthew  and  the  original 
James  and  the  original  Jude.  The  material  really  was  papyrus. 
There  was  upon  the  leaves  a  real  writing  of  a  late  century  that 
had  nothing  to  do  with  the  times  of  the  New  Testament.  And 
then  there  were  some  big  but  rather  dim  letters  upon  the  papyrus 
containing  passages  from  Matthew  and  James  and  Jude,  and 
the  rascal  who  sold  them  declared  that  these  passages  were  a 
previous  writing  on  the  papyrus,  and  had  been  written  in  the  first 
century  of  our  era  by  those  three  authors.  It  was  not  strange 
that  the  rich  man  who  believed  this  paid  a  large  sum  to  gain 
possession  of  such  wonderful  treasures.  When,  however,  the 
experts  came  to  examine  the  leaves  they  saw  at  once  that  the 
pretended  old  writing  was  a  mere  piece  of  cheating.  They  could 
clearly  see  that  this  writing,  which  was  alleged  to  be  of  the  first 
century,  had  not  at  all  been  written  at  first  upon  the  papyrus, 
before  that  very  much  younger  writing,  but  that  it  was  on  top  of 
the  writing  centuries  younger.  That  man  had  written  it  there 
himself  to  make  money  He  was  really  a  very  learned  man,  and 
it  was  a  great  pity  that  he  in  this  as  in  some  other  cases  proved 
untrustworthy.     We  cannot  expect  to  find  remains  of  the  original 


3l6  THE  TEXT 

copies  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament.  God  did  not  hand 
these  books  down  from  heaven.  He  caused  men  to  write  them. 
And  when  each  book  had  Uved  its  day  He  allowed  it  to  vanish 
away  like  other  frail  human  fabrics.  He  did  not  have  regard  to 
the  letter  but  to  the  spirit,  not  to  the  outside  of  the  book  or  the 
roll  but  to  the  inside  of  it  in  the  inward  sense,  not  to  something 
perishable  but  to  something  eternal. 


317 


II. 

PARCHMENT, 

We  saw  that  at  Rome  the  time  had  come  at  which  the  leaders  of 
the  Christians  there  were  persuaded  that  if  they  did  not  wish  to 
lose  the  letter  of  Paul  to  them  they  must  have  it  copied.  The 
question  that  now  arises  refers  to  the  way  in  which  it  was  copied. 
If  the  church  had  been  a  poor  little  group  of  men  who  could  only 
with  great  difficulty  scrape  together  a  small  amount  of  money,  the 
new  letter  would  have  been  to  all  intents  and  purposes  the 
counterpart  of  the  old  letter.  It  would  have  been  written  on 
papyrus  again  and  in  a  running  hand.  It  would  have  been  written 
upon  papyrus  because  that  was  the  common  writing  material,  the 
paper,  of  that  day,  whether  at  Alexandria  or  at  Antioch  or  at 
Rome.  If  a  man  put  a  handbill  up  at  Rome,  he  wrote  it  on  a 
big  piece  of  coarse  papyrus.  If  he  wrote  a  delicate  note  to  his 
wife  or  his  mother,  he  wrote  it  on  a  little  piece  of  fine  papyrus. 
Papyrus  was  their  paper. 

But  I  do  not  think  it  is  probable  that  the  Romans  caused 
this  Epistle  to  be  copied  on  papyrus.  The  church  at  Rome 
had  then  many  members.  It  was  perhaps  the  largest  and  most 
wealthy  Christian  community  in  existence.  If  any  church  could 
afford  to  have  a  nice  book  written,  it  was  the  church  at  Rome. 
It  was  not  a  mere  matter  of  pride  or  luxury,  however,  and  not 
merely  the  desire,  the  very  proper  desire,  to  do  honour  to  a 
letter  of  the  Apostle  Paul,  that  was  calculated  to  lead  them 
not  to  use  papyrus.  The  papyrus  was  not  very  durable  :  we  have 
seen  why  it  was  not.  As  time  went  on  the  Christians  must 
have  felt  that  they  could  depend  less  upon  the  immediate  return 
of  Jesus,  that  they  must  arrange  the  Church  and  its  belongings 
for  a  longer  stay  in  this  wicked  world.  They  still  wrote  as  we 
saw  above  in  the  letter  of  Clement :  "  The  church  living  in  this 
foreign  world  at  Rome,"  and  they  still  looked  to  heaven  as  their 
real  home.  Yet  they  began  to  treat  themselves  more  calmly,  to 
make  themselves  more  "at  home"  here.     That  meant  for  the 


3l8  THE  TEXT 

books  of  the  New  Testament  that  they  must  put  them  upon  the 
most  durable  book-material  that  they  could  find. 

Now  they  might  have  had  them  written  on  leather.  The  Jews 
in  ancient  times  often  had  their  sacred  books  on  leather.  Leather 
is,  however,  not  very  nice  for  books.  It  is  too  thick  and  too 
heavy  and  too  dark-coloured.  The  written  words  are  soon  not 
much  blacker  than  the  leather  itself.  There  is  something  better 
than  leather,  and  that  is  parchment.  Parchment  is  called  in  Greek 
"  pergamini  "  after  the  city  Pergamus  where  it  is  said  to  have  been 
invented.  I  suppose  it  was  merely  very  well  made  there,  so  that 
the  name  of  the  city  was  given  to  the  best  kind.  'To  make 
parchment,  usually  sheepskins  or  goatskins  or  calfskins  are  used. 
The  skin  is  stretched  out  tight  and  dried,  and  then  scraped  off  on 
both  sides  and  then  rubbed  with  chalk.  In  the  East  I  am  in- 
clined to  think  that  goatskins  are  most  frequently  used,  when 
they  can  be  had.  They  are  better  than  sheepskins,  because  there 
is  not  so  much  oily  matter  in  them.  We  shall  return  to  parch- 
ment again  and  tell  more  about  it. 

Probably  the  Romans  had  Paul's  letter  copied  off  on  to  a 
parchment  roll.  Now  they  knew  how  long  it  was,  and  they 
could  tell  how  long  the  roll  must  be.  The  textual  critic  must 
know  all  about  book-making,  not  for  races  but  for  literature.  We 
are  at  Rome.  In  this  great  city  there  were  plenty  of  well- 
trained  scribes.  It  is  quite  likely  that  some  scribes  had  already 
become  Christians.  If  not,  there  would  be  Christians  who 
knew  scribes  upon  whom  they  could  rely,  who  would  treat  the 
Christian  books  carefully.  The  scribes  were  paid  according  to 
the  amount  of  writing  of  course,  and  they  often  gave  the  measure 
of  a  book  at  the  end  of  it.  Then  the  man  who  had  ordered 
the  book  would  know  how  much  he  had  to  pay.  And  if  any- 
one wished  for  a  new  copy  he  could  at  once  tell  the  scribe  how 
long  it  was,  and  learn  the  price.  In  England  and  America  a 
printer  who  sets  up  a  book  is  paid  by  the  number  of  ws,  which 
are  called  ems,  because  m  is  square  and  therefore  makes  a  good 
measure.  The  Greek  scribes  were  paid  by  the  "  line,"  called  a 
stichos.  It  would  never  have  done  to  leave  the  measuring  "  line  " 
to  vary  according  to  the  book.  Therefore  once  for  all,  for  all 
kinds  of  books,  whether  sacred  or  profane,  whether  prose  or 
poetry,  a  line  that  was  about  as  long  as  a  line  or  verse  of  Homer, 
a  hexameter  line,  was  used.     Such  a  line  contains  about  thirty-six 


PARCHMENT  319 

letters  on  an  average.  If  a  trained  scribe  were  summoned  to 
write  Romans  off,  he  would  count  the  number  of  lines  and  then 
write  them  down  at  the  end  of  the  Epistle.  If  the  Epistle  has 
remained  just  as  he  had  it  before  him,  he  must  have  written  "  nine 
hundred  and  twenty  or  fifty  lines"  or  thereabouts.  And  this 
trained  scribe  will  now  probably  not  have  used  the  running  hand 
for  his  work.  The  Epistle  was  no  longer  a  letter  that  someone 
wrote  here  and  sent  thither.  It  was  a  little  book  that  these 
Christians  wished  to  keep  and  read.  The  scribe  wrote  it  doubt- 
less in  pretty  capital  letters,  in  comparatively  narrow  columns. 
That  would  be  much  clearer  and  easier  to  read,  whether  in 
private  or  in  the  meetings  in  church.  The  scribe  we  shall 
assume  wrote  the  Epistle  anew.  If  some  simple  Christian  who 
could  only  write  the  running  hand  really  wrote  it  off  the  first  time, 
then  the  trained  scribe  came  later.  He  came.  He  could  not 
but  come,  so  soon  as  the  church  wished  for  a  pretty  copy. 

We  must  here  mention  another  matter  in  passing,  something 
also  connected  with  book-making.  There  is  one  of  the  most 
interesting  problems  in  the  realm  of  New  Testament  research 
that  attaches  to  the  last  two  chapters  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans. 
The  problem  itself  belongs  rather  to  the  criticism  of  the  books 
than  to  the  criticism  of  the  text.  But  one  or  two  of  the  solutions 
of  the  problem  rest  upon  a  possibility  in  textual  criticism,  upon  a 
possibility  in  the  copying  off  of  books.  For  my  own  part  I  am 
inclined  to  accept  in  the  case  of  these  two  chapters,  and  I  may 
say  especially  in  the  case  of  the  last,  the  sixteenth  chapter,  a 
solution  which  belongs  precisely  at  this  point,  at  which  we  are 
leaving  the  original  letter  as  Tertius  wrote  it  and  passing  on  to  a 
new  copy  written  by  an  unknown  scribe.  Here  we  must  be  short. 
It  is  not  impossible  that  Romans  at  first  closed  with  chapter 
fourteen.  If  that  was  the  case,  then  these  two  other  chapters 
were  probably  written  separately  by  Paul,  and  at  Rome  placed  for 
good  keeping  in  the  roll  of  Romans.  It  must  not  be  forgotten 
that,  among  the  accidents  which  occasionally  happened  to  papyrus 
rolls,  the  tearing  across  the  whole  roll  sometim.es  took  place. 
This  circumstance  would  make  it  easy  for  a  scribe  to  suppose  on 
finding  a  couple  of  loose  pieces  that  they  were  a  part  of  the 
Epistle.  He  may  even  have  thought  that  the  original  author  of 
the  Epistle  had  written,  or  dictated,  them  and  laid  them  in  the 
roll  without  taking  the  trouble  or  having  the  paste  to  stick  them 


320  THE  TEXT 

on  to  the  end  of  the  roll.  It  is,  however,  not  even  positively 
necessary  to  imagine  a  misunderstanding  of  that  kind.  It  could 
have  been  done  in  all  honesty  and  of  set  purpose. 

Let  us  go  back  to  Rome.  The  leader  of  the  church  who 
handed  the  roll  to  the  scribe  may  have  known  very  well  that 
the  pieces  of  papyrus,  on  which  what  we  call  the  fifteenth 
and  sixteenth  chapters  were  written,  had  been  received  by 
the  church  apart  from  Romans.  But  he  may  have  said  :  "  Here 
are  these  two  short  communications  from  Paul.  If  I  leave  them 
lying  around  they  will  soon  be  lost.  The  best  thmg  will  be 
to  write  them  into  the  new  roll  at  the  end  of  Romans.  Here, 
scribe,  copy  these  at  the  end  of  the  roll.  They  are  from  Paul 
too."  A  Christian  could  then  very  well  have  spoken  and  acted 
thus.  That  would  have  been  for  him  a  thoroughly  practical 
and  perfectly  proper  way  of  disposing  of  such  small  letters.  It 
was  no  forgery.  Paul  had  written  it  all.  And  this  Christian 
did  not  for  a  moment  think  of  the  critics  in  coming  centuries 
who  would  rack  their  brains  to  discover  what  was  the  matter 
with  these  chapters.  And  even  from  the  advanced  standpoint  of 
to-day  we  must  confess  that  if  this  really  be  the  state  of  affairs 
it  does  not  do  the  least  harm.  No  one's  salvation,  and  I  think 
no  one's  peace  of  mind,  depends  upon  our  knowing  just  how 
these  chapters  came  to  stand  where  they  do  (see  pp.  521-526). 

We  have  now  reached  the  point  at  which  Romans  has  been 
copied  off  in  a  literary  hand  on  parchment.  We  pass  over  a 
few  years.  It  is  not  easy  to  say  just  how  many.  The  church 
at  Rome  has  one  by  one  at  last  come  into  possession  of  a  number 
of  the  Epistles  of  Paul.  Many  or  all  of  them  may  have  reached 
Rome  on  the  cheaper  paper,  papyrus,  and  written  in  the  common 
running  hand.  It  is  not  impossible  that  the  church  caused 
them  some  day  to  be  copied  together  into  one  large  roll.  In 
like  manner  the  four  Gospels  were  at  first  on  separate  rolls  and 
may  later  have  been  put  into  one  roll. 

We  have  fastened  our  gaze  on  Rome.  There  we  have  the 
most  favourable  conditions  possible  for  the  careful  preservation 
of  the  books  and  for  their  re-copying  whenever  it  may  be 
desirable.  At  Corinth,  at  Smyrna,  at  Antioch,  at  Alexandria 
the  general  conditions  for  Christian  books  are  not  so  very 
different  from  those  found  in  Rome.  Every  one  of  these  cities 
had  a  prosperous  church,  and  that  church  was,  like  the  one  at 


rARCIIMENT  321 

Rome,  Greek,  and  used  the  New  Testament  in  its  original 
language.  Such  large  churches  were,  we  may  be  sure,  the  first 
to  gather  the  books  together.  In  smaller  towns  and  in  the 
villages,  so  far  as  Christianity  had  reached  them,  the  circum- 
stances were  in  many  varying  degrees  different  from  those  in  the 
cities  named.  The  cities  that  any  of  the  Twelve-Apostles  or  that 
Paul  had  visited  were  in  name  and  certainly  to  a  large  extent  in 
fact  ahead  of  the  others,  particularly  those  to  which  the  apostles 
had  written  Epistles.  They  prided  themselves  on  their  distinction, 
and  the  other  towns  looked  up  to  them  with  feelings  akin  to 
envy.  In  the  villages  the  number  of  New  Testament  books  at 
command  must  long  have  remained  minimal.  Often  the  copy  of 
an  Epistle  or  of  a  Gospel  that  a  preacher  brought  with  him  from 
a  neighbouring  town,  in  order  to  read  from  it  during  the  Sunday 
service,  may  have  been  the  only  such  book  that  the  Christians 
there  saw  from  one  week  to  another.  In  some  cases  we  may 
hold  it  likely  that  the  village  churches  received  old  and  damaged 
rolls  which  the  city  churches  had  cast  aside  on  securing  new  and 
better  copies,  precisely  as  it  sometimes  to-day  happens  that 
city  churches  send  old  Bibles  or  hymn-books  or  prayer-books 
to  churches  on  the  frontiers  of  civilisation.  In  other  cases  it  is 
sure  to  have  come  to  pass  that  Christians  who  could  write  but 
a  very  poor  script  succeeded  in  borrowing  a  roll  and  in  copying 
a  book  for  their  town  or  village. 

There  was  no  standstill  in  all  this.  Everything  was  moving 
on.  The  mind's  eye  might  have  seen  the  books  gradually 
going  out  and  gradually  multiplying  from  place  to  place  like 
the  leaven  going  through  the  lump,  like  a  lichen  spreading  over 
a  rock,  like  an  ivy  covering  a  wall.  To  this  slight  sketch  of 
the  growth  in  the  number  of  the  manuscripts  of  the  books 
of  the  New  Testament  nothing  need  be  added  until  the  fourth 
century.  There  came  now  and  then  indeed,  sad  to  say,  times 
of  reverse.  A  governor  of  a  province  or  the  ruler  of  a  city 
occasionally  took  it  into  his  head  to  check  the  progress  of 
Christian  effort  by  forcing  the  Christians  under  him  to  give  up 
to  him  the  writings  which  they  so  much  cherished.  The  various 
cases  differed  much  from  each  other.  Sometimes  they  were  told 
to  bring  their  books,  and  the  officials  did  not  scrutinise  the 
number  or  the  character  of  the  books  handed  over.  In  other 
places  the  officials  rudely  demanded  all  books,  and  searched 
21 


322  THE  TEXT 

every  nook  and  corner  to  find  them.  Yet  in  spite  of  such 
reverses  the  word  was  sowed  broadcast.  Such  times  of  reverse 
served  to  sieve  out  the  nominal  Christians  from  the  real 
Christians,  the  lovers  of  and  the  doers  of  the  word  from  those 
who  only  "  heard  "  it. 

Leaf-Books. 

As  we  approach  the  fourth  century  I  must  describe  a  theory 
of  mine.  It  is  a  mere  theory,  a  hypothesis,  a  fancy  as  to  what 
may  have  happened.  Should  we  some  day  or  other  come  to 
know  the  facts,  they  will  perhaps  not  agree  with  the  theory  at 
all.  For  the  moment,  however,  the  facts  lie  hidden  and  the 
theory  may  boldly  stalk  abroad.  We  have  already  remarked 
that  the  books  in  the  times  of  which  we  have  spoken  were  not 
leaf  books,  not  squares  or  parallelograms  an  inch  or  a  few  inches 
thick  with  a  number  of  leaves  to  be  turned  over,  but  were  rolls. 
At  the  close  of  the  fourth  century  the  books  appear  to  have  been 
almost  altogether  leaf-books,  at  least  that  is  my  impression.  We 
do  not  yet  know  at  what  precise  moment  the  change  from  rolls 
to  leaf-books  was  made.  It  was  a  great  change.  How  different 
a  library  of  rolls  would  look  from  a  library  of  leaf-books  !  How 
much  more  easy  it  is  to  hold,  to  read,  to  find  anything  in  a  leaf- 
book  from  what  it  is  to  hold  a  roll,  to  read  it,  or  to  find  anything 
in  it !  At  present,  with  all  that  I  have  heard  and  seen,  I  am 
inclined  to  think  that  this  change  was  made  about  the  end 
of  the  third  or  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  century,  or  ±  300. 
We  do  not  know.  That  is  the  best  guess  I  can  now  make.  A 
new  papyrus  may  to-morrow  show  that  the  change  came  earlier. 

The  theory  touches  the  person  or  persons  who  made  this 
change,  who  invented  leaf-books.  I  am  ready  to  believe  that  leaf- 
books  are  due  to  a  Christian ;  that  a  Christian  was  the  first  one  who 
felt  the  need  of  a  change,  and  who  effected  the  change.  The  reason 
for  the  theory  is  this.  No  one  had  such  need  as  the  Christian 
to  seek  different  passages  in  great  numbers  in  widely  separated 
places  in  large  books.  There  were  several  classes  of  scholars. 
There  were  heathen  classical  scholars,  who  had  a  comparatively 
limited  library  of  Greek  and  Latin  works,  among  which  Plato  and 
Aristotle  were  perhaps  with  Homer  the  ones  represented  by  the 
largest  number  of  rolls.      There  were  Jewish  philosophers  and 


PARCHMENT  325 

Jewish  rabbis  who  both  dealt  with  the  Old  Testament  books,  the 
philosophers  also  using  the  writings  of  the  classical  world.  And 
finally  appeared  our  latest  generation  the  Christians,  who  knew 
and  used  the  writings  of  the  classical  world,  and  who  were  com- 
pelled in  debate  with  Jews  and  with  heathen  and  with  Christians 
to  turn  swiftly  from  Genesis  to  Revelation,  from  First  John  to 
Daniel,  from  Isaiah  to  Paul.  No  others  needed  to  turn  to  so 
many  books  and  so  quickly.  Here  is  the  hold  for  the  theory. 
I  think  this  difficulty  may  have  brought  some  Christian  scholar, 
proceeding  from  the  heathen  diptychs  or  double  wax  tablets,  to 
suggest  or  to  prepare  leaf -books,  I  am  further  ready  to  believe 
that  two  old  manuscripts  of  the  Bible,  which  we  have  now  in 
Europe,  were  among  the  earlier  leaf-books. 


Sides  of  Parchment. 

Now,  however,  that  we  are  coming  to  the  leaf-books  we  must 
mention  another  thing.  Parchment  has  two  sides.  It  is  skin. 
It  has  a  side  that  was  on  the  outside  of  the  animal  and  was 
covered  with  goat's  hair  or  sheep's  wool.  And  it  has  a  side  that 
was  against  the  flesh,  that  covered  the  ribs.  We  may  call  them 
the  hair  side  and  the  flesh  side.  The  hair  side  is  in  comparison 
with  the  flesh  side  of  a  darker  shade,  and  when  the  parchment 
grows  old  the  diff"erence  in  colour  is  more  clearly  visible, 
particularly  in  parchment  made  out  of  sheepskin.  In  the  second 
place,  the  hair  side  is  rougher  than  the  flesh  side.  This  difference 
is  often  very  slight,  but  it  is  usually  there.  Once  I  was  speaking 
with  a  parchment  maker,  and  I  asked  him  which  side  of  a  certain 
piece  of  fine  parchment  was  which.  He  said  he  could  not  tell  with- 
out a  careful  examination.  I  took  hold  of  it  and  said  to  him  what 
I  thought  the  sides  were,  and  it  proved  when  he  examined  it  that 
I  had  felt  right.  The  parchment  maker  had  never  tried  to  tell 
the  sides  by  feeling.  That  was  not  of  the  least  use  in  his 
business.  But  I  had  for  years  been  feeling  parchment  leaves 
just  for  this  purpose.  I  do  not  doubt  that  some  parchments 
would  be  too  fine  to  be  thus  distinguished  by  feeling,  but  I  am 
not  sure.  I  question  whether  I  could  feel  the  difference  between 
the  sides  in  the  great  Vatican  manuscript ;  I  cannot  remember 
about  it  as  to  this  point.     In  the  third  place,  the  hair  side  is  not 


324  THE  TEXT 

only  darker  and  rougher,  but  it  is  also  more  thirsty  than  the  flesh 
side,  and  it  drinks  up  the  ink  much  more  eagerly  and  drinks  it 
in  more  thoroughly.  The  result  is  that  if  a  manuscript  has 
grown  old  and  the  leaves  have  been  much  rubbed  against  each 
other  or  rubbed  by  men's  hands,  the  writing  on  the  flesh  side 
may  in  the  places  that  have  been  most  rubbed  vanish  away 
completely  so  that  no  vestige  of  the  letters  can  be  seen.  On  the 
hair  side,  on  the  contrary,  the  ink  sinks  in  so  deep  into  the  pores 
of  the  skin  that  it  is  often  no  easy  matter  for  a  scribe  to  erase  a 
word  on  it  with  his  knife. 

The  reason  we  have  to  speak  of  the  sides  of  the  parchment  is 
this  :  the  quires  are  made  according  to  a  certain  law.  Even  if  it  be 
not  important,  1  like  to  tell  about  this  law  because  I  discovered 
it.  A  quire  in  a  Greek  manuscript  of  respectable  family  consists, 
like  a  quire  in  an  ordinary  modern  octavo  printed  book,  of  four 
double  leaves  or  eight  single  leaves.  It  is  called  a  four-er,  and 
the  name  usual  is  a  quaternion ;  but  those  ten  Latin  letters  say 
no  more  than  the  six  Saxon  letters  :  fourer,  only  you  must  know 
that  the  latter  word  comes  from  four  or  else  you  will  not  pro- 
nounce it  right.  And  these  eight  leaves  must  begin  with  a  flesh 
side  and  end  with  a  flesh  side,  and  there  must  be  two  flesh  sides 
in  the  middle  of  the  quire,  and  every  two  pages  that  open  out 
together  must  both  be  flesh  sides  or  both  be  hair  sides.  If  a 
man  does  not  know  the  law,  he  is  likely  to  make  a  poor  manu- 
script. But  infringements  of  the  rule  that  the  sides,  the  pages, 
that  come  together  must  be  both  alike  are  rare.  We  have  at 
Leipzig  a  small  manuscript  made  without  regard  to  this  law,  and 
it  looks  ugly,  ill-bred,  and  generally  disreputable.  If  a  roll  be 
made  of  parchment,  the  flesh  side  must  be  the  inside  of  the  roll, 
the  side  that  receives  the  writing.  For  it  is  the  most  beautiful 
side,  makes  the  best  appearance,  even  if  it  does  not  retain  the  ink 
so  well. 

It  is  further  to  be  remarked  that  if  a  Greek  manuscript  does 
not  observe  the  above  law  as  to  the  number  of  leaves  in  the 
quire,  if  instead  of  being  a  fourer  it  be  a  fiver,  a  quinio  (not,  as 
the  books  often  write,  a  quinternio),  made  of  five  double  leaves 
and  therefore  having  twenty  pages,  or  have  any  other  number 
of  leaves  regularly  in  the  quires,  then  it  is  not  of  pure  Greek 
origin.  This  conclusion  is  especially  justified  if  the  manuscript 
be  well  gotten  up,  like  that  great  Vatican  manuscript  which  was 


PARCHMENT  325 

mentioned  a  moment  ago,  and  which  shows  others  signs  of  a  non- 
Grecian  descent.  Indeed  we  can  take  up  that  very  point  pre- 
cisely here.  That  beautiful  manuscript  has  very  old  leaf- 
numbers.  That  is  not  Greek.  Greek  manuscripts  do  not 
number  their  leaves.  A  Greek  manuscript  numbers  only  its 
quires.  If  one  happens  to  find  numbers  for  the  leaves  in  a 
Greek  manuscript,  that  is  to  say  numbers  that  belong  to  ancient 
times,  that  have  not  been  put  in  in  the  West  and  in  the  fifteenth 
to  the  twentieth  century,  he  may  be  sure  that  a  stranger  has 
written  them  in. 

Parchment,  to  go  back  to  the  material  written  on,  is  of  different 
thicknesses,  just  as  paper  is.  But  it  is  not  possible,  as  I  used  to 
think  it  was,  for  the  parchment  makers  to  pare  down  or  grind  off 
or  do  anything  else  to  make  the  parchment  thinner.  A  certain 
skin,  every  skin,  has  its  body  of  parchment,  if  the  expression  is 
intelligible.  The  sharp  scrapers  of  the  workmen  go  just  so  far 
and  not  farther.  If  they  go  beyond  the  proper  point  the  skin  is 
spoiled.  Therefore  a  fine  thin  parchment  can  only  be  made 
from  a  thin  skin,  and  that  thin  skin  can  only  be  a  young  skin. 
To  go  at  once  to  the  greatest  extreme  known  to  me,  there  is  in 
the  City  Library  at  Leipzig  a  manuscript  of  the  Latin  Bible 
written  upon  parchment  made  from  the  skin  of  unborn  lambs. 
It  is  exquisite  parchment,  and  thinner  than  most  thin  papers  are, 
I  should  think.  On  the  other  hand,  we  sometimes  see  parchment 
that  is  very  thick  and  stiff,  almost  like  so  much  pasteboard. 

Parchment  was  really  necessary  for  the  leaf-books  as  contrasted 
with  papyrus  or  with  leather.  If  a  leaf-book  were  made  out  of 
leather,  the  leaves  would  be  likely  to  curl  over  at  the  top  when 
the  book  was  opened  upon  the  reading-desk.  The  parchment 
leaves  are  usually  more  stiff  and  lie  or  stand  well.  Papyrus 
would  have  given  no  trouble  in  this  respect,  for  it  was  stiff  enough. 
But  it  is  at  once  clear  that  papyrus  with  those  little  fibres  so 
easily  broken  would  not  be  fitted  to  stand  the  opening  and 
shutting  and  the  turning  over  of  the  leaves,  but  must  if  much 
used  soon  go  to  pieces.  Parchment  was,  on  the  contrary,  very 
durable,  and  could  be  bent  and  used  at  will.  Reasonable  use  of 
a  parchment  book  has  no  appreciable  effect  upon  its  condition, 
during  long  years.  The  defects  in  parchment  manuscripts  are 
sometimes  due  to  rough  usage  on  the  part  of  those  who  read 
them,  but  they  are  usually  due  to  outrageous  treatment  on  the 


326  THE  TEXT 

part  of  ignorant  people  who  have  thrown  them  about  and  trodden 
on  them  and  torn  them.  Good  parchment  was,  I  think,  dearer 
than  papyrus,  but  it  was  much  more  beautiful  and  indefinitely 
more  durable,  and  when  the  rolls  were  exchanged  for  leaf-books 
the  day  of  papyrus  for  literature  began  to  wane. 


Constantine's  Manuscripts. 

We  now  take  our  stand  in  the  fourth  century,  and  Christianity 
had  up  to  the  fourth  century  been  growing  apace  in  spite  of  all 
eflforts  to  repress  it.  At  last  an  emperor  determined  to  be  a 
Christian.  There  are  people  who  think  that  this  emperor, 
Constantine,  took  up  Christianity  rather  as  a  matter  of  business 
than  as  a  matter  of  religion,  that  it  was  State  policy  and  not 
devotional  feeling  that  guided  his  steps.  Be  that  as  it  may,  it 
is  not  easy  for  us  after  nearly  sixteen  centuries  to  go  back  to 
the  city  which  he  renamed  after  himself  as  Constantine's  City, 
Constantinople,  and  try  his  heart  and  reins ;  and  he  did  his 
royal  duty  towards  the  Bible  at  least  in  one  case.  It  was  in  the 
year  331.  Eusebius,  the  bishop  of  Caesarea  in  Palestine,  was  a 
very  learned  man,  a  great  book  man,  and  an  active  prelate.  He 
wrote  a  life  of  Constantine  in  which  he  displayed  no  little  skill 
as  a  flatterer.  In  that  year,  331,  as  Eusebius  tells  us  in  this  life, 
Constantine  conceived  the  idea  of  making  a  great  present  to  the 
chief  churches  near  him.  He  wrote  to  Eusebius  about  it,  for 
Eusebius  was  not  only  very  learned,  but  he  was  also  the  bishop 
of  the  city  with  the  most  celebrated  Christian  library.  I  like  to 
think  that  that  library  contained  many  of  Origen's  own  personal 
books,  for  he  lived  and  taught  there  for  years.  Constantine 
knew  then  that  first-class  biblical  manuscripts  were  there,  and 
first-class  scribes  to  copy  new  ones.  He  told  Eusebius  to  have 
fifty  fine  copies  of  the  Bible  made,  and  to  send  them  to  him  at 
Constantinople.  He  promised  even  to  reward  handsomely  the 
deacon  whom  he  asked  Eusebius  to  send  to  Constantinople  as 
a  guard  for  the  costly  manuscripts  on  the  long  journey.  It  would 
be  very  nice  if  we  could  find  some  of  those  manuscripts. 

Unfortunately  Eusebius  knew  nothing  of  the  burning  wishes 
of  textual  critics  in  the  twentieth  century,  and  did  not  describe 
these  manuscripts  in  detail.     He  told  just  one  thing  about  them, 


PARCHMENT  327 

and  we,  alas  !  do  not  know  what  his  words  mean.  We  can  only 
guess  at  their  meaning.  He  says  that  he  wrote  them  by  threes 
and  fours,  or  "three-wise  and  four-wise."  Eusebius  knew  what 
he  meant.  Would  that  we  did.  This  must  have  been  a 
technical  expression  in  making  books.  Some  scholars  have 
thought  that  Eusebius  referred  to  the  quires,  and  that  he  said 
that  he  had  written  them  on  quires  of  three  double  leaves  and 
on  quires  of  four  double  leaves,  on  ternions  and  quaternions. 
This  suggestion  does  not  commend  itself  to  me,  for  two  reasons. 
In  the  first  place,  so  far  as  we  know,  no  Greek  manuscript  was 
ever  made  up  in  quires  of  three  double  leaves.  We  have  seen 
that  the  rule  was  four  double  leaves.  And,  in  the  second  place, 
the  quires  and  the  number  of  leaves  in  the  quires  are  things 
that  do  not  strike  the  eye  when  a  man  looks  at  a  book.  If  a 
man  to-day  takes  up  an  uncut  printed  book  he  may  see  the 
quires  in  a  certain  individuality,  but  even  thus  the  number  of 
leaves  in  a  quire  does  not  impress  itself  upon  him  unless  he  directs 
his  mind  to  that  point.  But  the  Greek  manuscripts  were  never 
uncut,  and  the  moment  a  volume  was  bound,  the  man  who 
opened  it  at  hazard  would  in  no  way  be  forced  to  see  how 
many  leaves  there  happened  to  be  in  the  quires.  My  theory 
about  it  is  that  "  by  threes  and  fours  "  attaches  to  the  number 
of  columns  on  a  page.  If  a  man  opens  a  book  he  cannot  help 
seeing  instantly  whether  the  page  before  his  eyes  has  one  or  two 
or  three  or  four  columns.  I  think  that  Eusebius  meant  to  say 
or  did  say  by  those  mystic  words  that  he  had  the  fifty  Bibles 
written  in  pages  of  three  columns  and  in  pages  of  four 
columns. 

It  is  a  practical  reason  that  leads  me  to  this  theory.  If  I  am 
not  mistaken,  we  have  one  or  two  of  these  manuscripts  to-day  in 
our  hands,  or,  to  put  it  still  more  tentatively,  we  have  one  or  two 
manuscripts  that  may  as  well  as  not  have  been  among  these 
fifty  that  were  sent  to  Constantine  from  Caesarea  by  Eusebius. 
We  have  two  manuscripts  of  the  Bible  written  in  large  part,  one 
in  four,  the  other  in  three  columns.  The  poetical  books  of  the 
Old  Testament  do  not  count,  because  they  had  to  be  written  in 
two  columns  on  account  of  their  verses.  And  these  two 
manuscripts  are  palaeographically  and  theologically  apparently 
to  be  referred  to  the  fourth  century.  Perhaps  they  made  that 
journey  with  the  deacon  from  Caesarea  to  Constantinople.     No 


328  THE  TEXT 

record  is  known  of  the  churches  to  which  Constantine  gave  the 
new  Bibles.  Those  in  Constantinople  itself  probably  got  the 
greater  part  of  them,  since  Constantine  mentioned  them  in 
writing  to  Eusebius.  Yet  he  may  have  sent  one  or  another  to 
a  more  distant  church  of  importance  in  order  to  honour  the 
bishop  who  presided  over  it 


329 


III. 
LARGE  LETTER  GREEK  MANUSCRLPTS. 

The  Codex  Sinaiticus. 

The  manuscript  written  in  four  columns  is  the  Codex  Sinaiticus, 
known  by  the  Hebrew  letter  Aleph  X,  and  we  now  turn  our 
attention  to  it.  In  the  year  1844,  Constantine  Tischendorf, 
a  privatdozent  then  in  the  university  at  Leipzig,  visited  the 
monastery  of  St.  Catharine  at  Mount  Sinai.  While  there  he 
found  in  a  waste  basket  forty-three  leaves  of  an  old  manu- 
script, and  the  monks  let  him  have  them.  He  also  saw 
some  more  leaves  that  they  refused  to  give  him,  but  he  copied 
one  of  them  off.  People  have  sometimes  derided  the  story  of 
his  finding  the  leaves  in  waste  basket.  They  did  not  know  how 
manuscripts  used  to  be  treated  in  the  East.  These  forty-three 
leaves  Tischendorf  brought  to  Leipzig  and  named  them  the 
Codex  Friderico-Augustanus,  after  the  King  of  Saxony,  Frederick 
Augustus.  These  leaves  contain  parts  of  the  Old  Testament.  Of 
course,  Tischendorf  did  not  say  where  he  had  found  them,  for  he 
wished  to  return  and  get  the  other  leaves.  Nine  years  later  he 
returned  to  the  monastery,  in  the  year  1853,  but  he  only  found  a 
fragment  of  Genesis.  He  thought  that  someone  else  had  secured 
the  remainder.  As,  however,  several  years  passed  by  and  no  one 
published  the  text  of  any  such  manuscript,  he  again  went  to 
Mount  Sinai  in  the  year  1859  to  look  for  it. 

He  spent  some  days  there  but  could  not  find  it.  He  had 
already  ordered  the  camels  to  be  ready  to  take  him  away  upon  the 
following  morning.  The  great  steward  of  the  monastery  asked  him 
to  come  into  his  room  to  pay  him  a  visit.  While  he  was  sitting 
there  the  steward  took  down  from  the  shelf  some  old  leaves  that 
he  had  lying  there  and  showed  them  to  him.  He  saw  at  once  that 
this  was  just  what  he  had  been  looking  for  all  these  years,  save  that 
there  was  much  more  of  it  than  he  had  supposed  to  exist.  That 
was  not  a  disagreeable  difference.     The  steward  let  Tischendorf 


330  THE  TEXT 

take  it  to  his  room,  and  he  found  that  it  contained  the  whole  of  the 
New  Testament,  much  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  the  letter  of 
Barnabas,  which  up  to  that  time  was  not  known  in  Greek,  and 
the  Shepherd  of  Hermas.  He  spent  the  night  copying  the  letter 
of  Barnabas,  for  he  did  not  know  whether  he  should  ever  see 
the  manuscript  after  the  next  morning,  and  he  thought  it  a 
duty  to  Christendom  to  secure  the  original  text  of  this  letter. 
The  next  morning  Tischendorf  tried  to  get  the  monks  to  let  him 
have  the  manuscript.  They  voted  upon  it,  but  there  was  a 
majority  of  one  against  him,  so  that  he  could  not  have  it. 
Thereupon  he  left  the  monastery  and  returned  to  Cairo,  where 
the  monks  of  Sinai  have  also  a  small  monastery. 

We  see  now  how  absurd  it  is  when  people  say  that  Tischendorf 
took  the  manuscript  away  from  the  monastery  by  stealth.  For  he 
did  not  take  it  away  from  the  monastery  at  all.  He  went  away  from 
the  monastery  and  left  it  there.  At  Cairo  the  head  monk  sent  an 
Arab  sheik  to  Mount  Sinai  to  bring  the  manuscript  to  Cairo. 
The  sheik  brought  it  and  gave  it  to  the  monks,  not  to  Tischendorf. 
Tischendorf  had  a  conference  with  the  monks,  and  it  was  agreed 
that  they  should  let  him  have  it  quire  by  quire  to  copy  off.  He 
was  to  give  a  receipt  for  eight  leaves,  the  four  double  leaves  of 
the  fourer,  the  quaternio,  and  when  he  brought  them  back  he 
was  to  have  the  next  eight.  Two  Germans  who  happened  to 
be  at  Cairo,  an  apothecary  and  a  bookseller,  helped  him  copy, 
and  Tischendorf  revised  most  carefully  what  they  copied.  Just 
then  the  highest  place  of  authority  among  the  monks  of  Sinai 
was  vacant.  The  monks  did  not  feel  as  if  they  could  dispose  of 
the  manuscript  until  they  had  a  new  abbot.  The  abbot  has  the 
title  of  archbishop.  The  election  took  a  great  deal  of  time.  In 
between  Tischendorf  went  to  Palestine.  He  had  discovered 
the  manuscript  on  the  4th  of  February  1859,  and  it  was  not 
until  the  28th  of  September  of  the  same  year  that  it  was 
placed  in  his  hands. 

So  far  removed  were  the  facts  from  the  favourite  description 
of  Tischendorfs  envyers,  wbc  think  that  he  slipped  it  into 
his  breast-pocket  in  February  a.id  vanished  unseen  from  the 
monastery.  Try  to  slip  into  your  pocket  unseen  three  hundred 
and  forty-six  leaves  of  parchment  which  are  forty-three  centi- 
metres long  and  thirty-seven  centimetres  broad.  But  besides 
that,   on    the    28th   of  September    1859   Tischendorf  did   not 


LARGE  LETTER   GREEK  MANUSCRIPTS  33 1 

take  it  away  from  the  monks  at  Cairo  by  stealth,  with  or  with- 
out the  necessary  and  necessarily  gigantic  breast-pocket.  For 
it  was  given  to  him  in  all  due  form  by  the  head  monk  in  the 
presence  of  the  others  who  were  at  Cairo,  and  in  the  presence 
of  the  Russian  consul,  who,  of  course,  made  an  official  minute 
of  the  whole  proceedings.  The  monks  delivered  over  the  manu- 
script to  Tischendorf  in  order  that  he  should  take  it  to  Leipzig 
and  publish  it,  and  then  present  it  to  the  Russian  emperor  in 
the  name  of  the  monks. 

According  to  Western  habits  in  reference  to  presents,  that 
would  be  enough.  If  the  monks  sent  it  as  a  present  to  the 
emperor,  very  well.  That  is  the  end  of  the  thing.  But  we  know 
from  the  Bible  that  in  the  East  a  gift  demands  a  return,  and  that 
this  return  may  under  given  circumstances  be  extraordinarily  like 
a  good  round  price  paid  for  the  nominal  gift.  The  twenty-third 
chapter  of  Genesis  shows  us  how  Ephron  gave  Abraham  the  field 
with  the  double  cave  in  it  as  a  family  tomb,  but  Abraham  paid 
him  four  hundred  ounces  of  silver  for  it  nevertheless.  After 
Tischendorf  had  published  the  manuscript  he  carried  it  to  Russia 
according  to  the  bargain,  and  gave  it  to  the  Czar  at  Zarskoe  Selo 
on  the  loth  of  November,  in  Russian  the  29th  of  October,  1862. 
But  the  Russian  emperor,  who  had  such  a  number  of  Eastern 
peoples  under  his  rule,  knew  all  about  "presents"  from  the 
East,  and  it  did  not  occur  to  him  to  put  this  manuscript  into  his 
library  before  he  had  arranged  for  the  return  present.  Instead 
of  that  he  sent  it  to  the  Russian  Ministry  of  Foreign  Affairs,  so 
that  it  might  remain  as  a  foreign  object  until  the  necessary 
business  arrangements  had  been  made.  At  that  time  the  journey 
from  St.  Petersburg  to  Mount  Sinai  w^as  not  so  easy  as  it  is 
to-day,  and  consumed  much  more  time.  Further,  it  used  to  be 
the  case — modern  diplomacy  has  doubtless  more  speedy  methods 
— that  diplomatic  agents  moved  very  slowly,  took  things  up 
slowly,  wrote  and  copied  letters  slowly,  and  sent  them  away  most 
slowly  of  all.  And,  on  the  other  hand,  the  monks  of  the  East 
can  far  outdo  all  diplomatists  in  slow  movement.  An  Eastern 
monk  thinks  he  is  doing  an  enormous  day's  work  if  within 
twenty-four  hours  he  does  as  much  as  an  ordinary  European 
would  do  in  twenty  minutes. 

In  consequence  of  this  it  was  not  until  the  year  1869  that 
the  business   was   brought  to  an  end,  and  the  manuscript  was 


332  THE   TEXT 

carried  from  the  Ministry  of  Foreign  Affairs  and  placed  in 
the  Imperial  Library  at  St.  Petersburg,  where  it  now  is.  We 
must  be  very  precise  in  all  this,  because  it  is  constantly  said, 
and  has  more  than  once  been  printed,  that  Tischendorf  or 
the  Russian  Government  promised  to  pay  for  the  manuscript, 
but  finally  did  not  do  so.  Sometimes  the  narrative  takes  the 
dramatic  form  that  a  sum  was  offered  but  indignantly  refused, 
and  that  the  monks  demanded  the  return  of  the  manuscript. 
That  is  all  wide  of  the  mark.  The  business  was  regularly  brought 
to  a  business-like  close. 

The  monks  at  Mount  Sinai  received  seven  thousand  rubles 
and  the  monks  at  Cairo  received  two  thousand  rubles,  say  six 
thousand  seven  hundred  and  fifty  dollars,  or  more  than  thirteen 
hundred  and  fifty  pounds  sterling.  That  was  for  that  time  a 
high  price  to  pay  for  the  manuscript.  So  far  from  refusing  to 
take  the  money,  the  monks  took  it  and  gave  receipts  for  it 
which  are  in  the  hands  of  the  Russian  Government.  And  that 
was  not  all.  The  decorations  referred  to  above  are  valued  in 
the  East  even  more  highly  than  they  are  in  the  decoration-loving 
circles  in  Western  Europe,  and  the  monks  received  a  number 
of  these  decorations. 

The  explanation  for  the  fact  that  the  monks  give  such  totally 
incorrect  accounts  of  the  acquisition  of  this  manuscript  by  Tischen- 
dorf, or  to  put  it  differently,  of  the  gift  of  this  manuscript  to  the 
Emperor  of  Russia,  is  to  be  found,  I  think,  in  two  circumstances. 
On  the  one  hand,  as  I  found  during  a  stay  of  eight  weeks  at 
Mount  Sinai,  there  does  not  appear  to  be  a  shadow  of  anything 
like  what  may  be  called  a  firm  and  interested  tradition  in  the 
monastery.  The  history  of  the  monastery,  apart  from  one  or 
two  general  statements  for  the  benefit  of  visiting  pilgrims,  did 
not  seem  to  have  any  charm  for  the  monks.  It  was  of  no 
importance  to  them  that  I  noted  in  the  history  of  the  monastery 
occasional  points,  dates  which  I  found  in  manuscripts.  The 
result  of  this  is  that  no  one  in  the  monastery,  as  far  as  I  could 
find,  had  the  least  knowledge  of  what  had  passed  the  forty  and 
odd  years  ago  when  Tischendorf  was  there.  On  the  other  hand, 
not  clashing  in  the  least  with  the  foregoing,  the  monks  think 
over  the  matter  for  themselves,  connecting  it  with  what  they 
hear,  but  do  not  understand,  about  the  value  of  the  manuscript, 
and  then  project  their  fancy,  as  to  what  they  from  their  present 


LARGE   LETTER   GREEK   MANUSCRIPTS  333 

Standpoint  would  do  if  the  case  were  presented  to  them,  into  the 
past.  Hereupon  they  assert  with  all  the  naiveness  of  ignorance 
that  their  predecessors  did  this  and  that,  which  in  fact  they  did 
not  do  at  all. 

This  manuscript  is  in  its  appearance,  when  it  is  thrown  open, 
much  like  a  piece  of  an  old  roll.  If  someone  could  give  us 
eighty-six  centimetres  of  a  corresponding  parchment  roll  it  would 
look  just  so.  The  columns  are  very  narrow.  In  a  roll  it  was 
convenient  to  have  the  columns  narrow.  For  then  it  was  not 
necessary  to  open  so  much  of  the  roll  at  once,  to  fill  out  so  much 
space  with  it  when  reading  or  when  copying  a  quotation  from  it. 
The  fact  that  the  columns  are  so  narrow  makes  it  appear  more 
likely  that  this  manuscript  is  among  the  earlier  large  books  that 
were  written  on  leaves  instead  of  in  a  roll.  It  is  as  if  the  scribes 
still  clung  to  their  accustomed  narrow  columns  for  a  fine  book. 
At  the  same  time,  if  what  was  said  about  Eusebius'  use  of  the 
terms  "  by  threes  and  by  fours  "  for  three  and  four  columns  on  a 
page  should  happen  to  be  right,  it  would  go  to  show  that  the 
leaves  in  books,  instead  of  a  roll,  were  not  just  then  new,  that 
they  had  been  in  use  for  awhile.  Therefore  I  am  inclined  at 
present  to  suppose  that  the  change  from  rolls  to  leaf-books  was 
made  about  the  year  ±  300  as  above  stated. 

Of  the  346J  leaves,  the  New  Testament  and  Barnabas  with 
Hermas  fill  147^.  The  columns  contain  forty-eight  lines.  The 
parchment  is  good  and  is  fairly  thin.  Tischendorf  thought  that  it 
was  made  from  antelope  skins.  I  do  not  know  with  certainty  what 
parchment  made  from  antelope  skins  would  look  like.  I  fear  that 
Tischendorf  argued  from  the  gentle  grace  of  a  swift  antelope  to  a 
thin  skin.  Perhaps  the  size  of  the  leaves  led  him  to  think  of  a 
larger  animal.  There  can  scarcely  have  been  anyone  in  the  East 
capable  of  telling  him  anything  else  than  fanciful  imaginings 
about  what  skins  gave  what  parchments.  It  is  hard  to  believe 
that  there  are  no  parchment  makers  to  be  found  in  Cairo  or  at 
Damascus,  but  I  tried  in  vain  to  find  them.  At  Jerusalem  I 
discovered  a  Jewish  parchment  maker,  but  it  is  my  impression 
that  he  was  not  a  native  of  Jerusalem  ;  he  had  a  German  name, 
and  was  probably  from  Austria  or  Russia.  The  point  is  that 
there  appears  to  be  no  one  there  who  can  say  what  kind  of 
parchment  comes  from  what  kind  of  skin.  And  then,  if  I  were 
to  judge  of  antelope  skin  from  the  vigour  and  strength  of  the 


334  THE  TEXT 

animals,  I  should  not  be  inclined  to  suppose  that  it  would  be 
especially  thin  and  fine ;  but  that  is  sheer  theory ;  I  know 
nothing  about  it. 

But  a  practical  reason  seems  to  me  to  stand  against  the 
use  of  antelope  skins.  Here  are  three  hundred  and  eighty-nine 
and  a  half  leaves,  for  we  must,  of  course,  add  the  forty-three 
leaves  of  the  Codex  Friderico-Augustanus  which  are  from  the 
same  volume,  and  as  a  great  many  leaves  of  the  Bible  are 
further  lacking,  the  volume  must  have  been  much  larger. 
Neither  at  Sinai  nor  at  Jerusalem  nor  in  Egypt,  so  far  as  I  can 
see,  is  there  any  reason  to  suppose  that  the  supply  of  antelopes 
was  such  as  to  make  it  easy  to  obtain  so  many  leaves  of  antelope 
parchment  within  a  reasonable  number  of  years.  If  my  judg- 
ment as  to  the  quality  of  antelope  skins  be  not  at  fault,  only 
young  animals  could  give  such  fine  parchment,  and  this  question 
of  age  would  further  limit  the  supply.  Here  my  knowledge  or 
my  suppositions  as  to  the  parchment  end. 

The  ink  is  a  pale  brown,  so  pale  that  it  might  almost  be  called 
brownish,  a  suspicion  of  something  brown.  The  letters  in  the  lines 
are  not  very  large.  Perhaps  they  could  be  compared  to  the  capital 
letters  in  this  book,  only  that  the  old  forms  tend  to  a  greater 
breadth,  so  that  a  round  letter  is  a  circle,  not  an  oval,  and  a 
rectangular  letter  about  fills  a  square.  The  words  have  no 
accents  or  spiritus  signs.  The  apostrophe  occurs  sometimes.  A 
period  is  occasionally  used.  In  some  places  the  sign  >  is  found 
at  the  end  of  a  line,  showing  that  what  follows  is  closely  connected 
with  what  precedes.  In  other  places  it  is  used  to  fill  out  a  line. 
There  are  often  little  short  strokes,  horizontal  lines,  that  project 
a  trifle  from  the  column  between  two  lines,  or  that  are  in  the 
margin  near  the  column,  to  show  the  beginning  of  a  paragraph. 
Sometimes  a  paragraph  is  indicated  by  the  fact  that  the  first 
letter  projects  a  mere  trifle  into  the  margin.  It  is  one  of  the 
signs  of  the  high  age  of  the  manuscript  that  these  projecting 
letters  are  not  larger  than  the  rest  of  the  text.  The  same  remark 
holds  for  the  small  letters  that  occasionally  occur.  They  keep 
to  the  full  round  or  square  form.     Certain  abbreviations  occur 

frequently,  such  as  the  following :  6's  for  Oeos,  ks  for  Kvpto^s,  x?  for 

XpLarck,  irrjp  for  TraxT/p,  fJLtjp  for  p-rjTr^p,  vs  for   vto'?,  8d8  for  8av€t8, 

avo<i  for  ai/^pwTTOS,  Ly]K  for   i(rparjXj  L^rj/x  for   icpovo-aA?;/^,  ovi^o^  for 


LARGE  LETTER   GREEK   MANUSCRIPTS  335 

ovpavos,  (Trjp  for  cr(DT-qp,  and  (rp<;  for  crravpos.  In  old  times  these 
abbreviations  were  termed  a  sign  of  age,  but  they  are  found  even 
down  to  the  youngest  manuscripts  and  therefore  mean  nothing, 
give  no  token  of  high  antiquity.  It  is  also  an  abbreviation  when, 
as  often  occurs  in  this  manuscript,  the  numbers  are  not  written 
out,  but  are  represented  by  the  Greek  letters  which  take  the  place 
of  our  Arabic  numerals. 

Owing  to  what  is  called  itacism,  certain  vowels  are  not  seldom 
replaced  by  others.  Itacism  denotes  the  fact  that  in  Greek 
to-day,  and  probably  at  least  from  the  time  of  Alexander  the 
Great,  the  vowels  t,  rj,  v  and  the  diphthongs  €i,  ot  all  sound  like 
an  English  e,  and  are  often  interchanged  in  the  manuscripts. 
In  a  similar  way  o  and  w  are  both  usually  short  and  may  be 
confused  with  each  other,  and  at  and  €  sound  both  like  e.  In 
this  manuscript  €i  and  t  are  often  written  instead  of  each  other, 
and  then  at  and  e.  The  confusion  of  v  with  ot,  7}  with  €t, 
and  o  with  w,  occurs  here  less  frequently.  Certain  grammatical 
forms,  which  are  often  incorrectly  termed  "Alexandrian,"  are 
often  found  in  this  manuscript. 

One  source  of  error  depends  upon  the  occurrence  of  the 
same  word  or  words,  or  of  words  that  look  alike  and  end  or 
begin  with  the  same  letters,  more  than  once  on  the  page  from 
which  the  scribe  is  copying.  Looking  away  from  the  original 
to  write  down  the  words  just  read,  the  scribe  in  turning  his 
eyes  back  to  the  original  strikes  the  other  line,  the  one  in 
which  the  same  or  similar  words  are  found,  and  copies  further 
from  that  point,  leaving  out  thus  by  accident  the  words  in 
between.  It  is,  of  course,  not  impossible  for  the  scribe  to  return 
by  this  careless  vision  from  the  second  occurrence  of  the  words 
to  the  former  place  at  which  they  occur,  and  thus  to  repeat  a 
second  time  that  passage.  This,  however,  does  not  happen  so 
readily,  because  the  scribe  usually  observes  at  once  that  he  has 
just  written  that  passage  down.  This  mistake  is  called  homoiote- 
leuton  or  "  like  ending,"  because  the  like  close  of  a  line  or  of  the 
words  causes  the  confusion. 

This  manuscript  contains  certain  small  sections  that  are  of  use 
to  show  in  what  way  the  Gospels  agree  with  each  other,  that  is  to 
say,  the  Greek  letters  that  give  the  numbers  of  these  sections 
are  written  along  the  side  of  the  columns.  Under  the  number 
of  each  section  stands  the  number  of  a  canon  or  list  in  which 


336  THE  TEXT 

the  corresponding  sections  of  the  other  Gospels  may  be  looked 
up.  It  was  another  scribe,  not  the  one  who  wrote  the  text, 
who  put  in  these  numbers  of  sections  and  canons,  but  he  did  it 
probably  at  the  same  time.  The  titles  and  the  subscriptions  to 
the  books  are  very  short,  which  is  a  sign  of  high  age  ;  for  example, 
Matthew  has  at  the  beginning  and  at  the  end  and  over  the 
pages  simply  "according  to  Matthew,"  the  two  Greek  words 
Kara  fiaOOoiov.  We  shall  not  recount  the  fragments  of  the  Old 
Testament,  that  this  manuscript  contains,  verse  by  verse.  They 
are  from  Genesis,  Numbers,  First  Chronicles,  Second  Ezra, 
Nehemiah,  Esther,  Tobit,  Judith,  First  and  Fourth  Maccabees, 
Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Lamentations,  Joel,  Obadiah,  Jonah,  Nahum, 
Habakkuk,  Zephaniah,  Haggai,  Zechariah,  Malachi,  Psalms, 
Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  Song  of  Solomon,  Wisdom,  Sirach,  Job. 
The  New  Testament  is  complete,  and  is  arranged  as  follows: 
the  Gospels,  the  Epistles  of  Paul  in  which  Hebrews  stands 
immediately  after  Second  Thessalonians,  Acts,  the  Catholic 
Epistles,  and  the  Revelation.  After  Revelation,  Barnabas  and 
the  Shepherd  of  Hermas  are  added. 

Four  scribes  wrote  this  manuscript.  One  of  the  four,  whom 
Tischendorf  called  A,  wrote  First  Chronicles,  First  Maccabees, 
the  last  four  leaves  of  Fourth  Maccabees,  the  whole  New  Testa- 
ment save  seven  leaves,  and  Barnabas.  Without  doubt  this 
same  scribe  wrote  also  some  of  the  books  that  are  missing. 
The  fourth  scribe,  named  D,  wrote  Tobit,  Judith,  the  first  three 
and  a  half  leaves  of  Fourth  Maccabees,  and  the  seven  leaves 
in  the  New  Testament  not  written  by  A.  These  seven  leaves 
are  the  tenth  and  fifteenth  in  Matthew,  the  last  in  Mark,  the 
first  in  Luke, — these  two  are  leaves  28  and  29  of  the  New 
Testament, — the  second  leaf  of  First  Thessalonians  or  leaf 
88,  the  third  leaf  of  Hebrews  or  leaf  91,  and  perhaps  the 
beginning  of  Revelation  on  leaf  126"*^.  It  is  odd  that  another 
scribe  should  have  written  seven  scattered  leaves.  It  looks 
as  if  there  had  been  mistakes  on  the  leaves  and  he  had 
supplied  more  correct  ones.  Another  curious  circumstance  is 
the  fact  that,  according  to  Tischendorf's  view,  this  scribe  D 
seems  to  have  written  all  that  we  have  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment in  the  great  Vatican  manuscript  of  which  we  shall 
soon  have  to  speak.  Should  this  view  be  right  it  would  fit 
in   very   well   with   the   supposition    that   the   two   manuscripts 


LARGE   LETTER   GREEK   MANUSCRIPTS  337 

both  proceeded  from  the  same  place  and  were  among  the 
fifty  of  Constantine. 

The  text  in  this  manuscript  is  very  good,  and  often  agrees 
with  the  text  of  the  Vatican  manuscript.  Westcott  and  Hort 
said  that  it  w^as  altogether  pre-Syrian,  or  that  its  readings  had 
not  been  altered  by  the  Syrian  scholars  who  appear  in  the  third 
and  in  the  fourth  century  to  have  busied  themselves  with  the 
text.  In  the  Gospels,  especially  in  John  and  to  a  certain  extent 
in  Luke,  and  perhaps  in  Revelation,  it  contains  Re-Wrought  read- 
ings which  Westcott  and  Hort  called  Western.  It  also  has  some 
Polished  or  so-called  Alexandrian  readings.  Many  scholars  have 
felt  it  necessary  to  decry  the  text  of  this  manuscript.  That  is 
wrong.  Tischendorf  may  well  have  rated  his  great  find  a  trifle 
too  high.  He  would  have  been  more  than  human  if  under 
the  circumstances  he  had  not  done  it,  seeing  that  he  for  three 
years  ate,  drank,  and  slept  this  manuscript.  Had  he  lived,  he 
would  surely  here  and  there  have  modified  his  predilection  for 
its  readings.  But  it  is,  nevertheless,  a  very  exceptional  manu- 
script. Westcott  and  Hort,  who  praise  B,  the  Vatican  manu- 
script, highly,  declare  that  this  manuscript  is  far  better  than  any 
of  the  manuscripts  except  B.  It  used  also  to  be  the  fashion  to 
say  that  the  Sinaitic  manuscript  was  very  badly  written,  was  full 
of  clerical  errors,  and  therefore  less  trustworthy.  And  the 
Vatican  manuscript  was  supposed  to  be  very  correctly  written. 
When,  however,  the  Vatican  copy  came  to  be  better  known,  it 
was  found  that  in  this  respect  there  was  not  much  choice 
between  the  two.  The  scribe  who  wrote  the  Vatican  often  leaves 
out  or  repeats  words  and  letters.  The  scribe  of  the  Sinaitic  errs 
less  frequently  in  that  way,  but  has  his  own  faults,  proceeding  like 
those  errors  from  swift  writing;  he  sometimes  puts  a  different 
Greek  word  in. 

Tischendorf  thought  that  seven  several  correctors  had  put 
their  pens  to  this  book.  The  one  he  named  with  the  letter  a 
seemed  to  be  of  the  same  date  as  the  original  scribe,  and 
at  any  rate  of  the  fourth  century.  The  corrector  b  was  of 
about  the  sixth  century,  and  only  corrected  a  few  passages, 
aside  from  the  first  pages  of  Matthew.  The  corrector  c  was 
probably  of  the  beginning  of  the  seventh  century,  and  is  often 
not  clearly  to  be  separated  from  the  next  corrector,  who  is  of 
the  same  century.     When   the  two  can  be  distinguished  fron^ 

32 


338  THE  TEXT 

each  other,  c  is  ca  and  the  other  is  cb.  It  is  clear  that  the 
next  corrector,  named  cc,  had  the  manuscript  in  his  hands  for 
a  long  while.  His  changes  may  be  seen  easily  in  Rev.  i^-  ^i-  i^ 
and  2 2.  The  next  one,  named  cc"^,  was  also  of  the  seventh 
century,  and  corrected  a  little  in  Rev.  ii^  3^  12^  and  18^.  The 
last  corrector,  named  e,  was  of  the  twelfth  century,  and  corrected 
but  little;  see,  for  example.  Matt.  19^  and  i  Tim.  3!^. 

The  following  reasons  may  be  urged  to  support  the  view  of 
Tischendorf  that  this  manuscript  was  written  in  the  fourth  century. 
In  the  first  place,  the  parchment  is  very  fine.  In  the  second 
place,  the  four  columns  on  a  page,  eight  on  the  open  double  page, 
approach  the  form  of  the  text  as  written  on  a  roll.  In  the  third 
place,  the  forms  of  the  letters  are  old.  In  the  fourth  place,  the 
column  with  no  large  initial  letter  thrust  out  into  the  edge  is  old. 
In  the  fifth  place,  the  rarity  of  the  punctuation  speaks  for  age. 
In  the  sixth  place,  the  less  pure  forms  in  spelling  and  grammar 
point  to  a  high  antiquity.  In  the  seventh  place,  those  short 
titles  and  subscriptions  are  old.  In  the  eighth  place,  the  larger 
chapters  in  the  Gospels  are  not  noted.  In  the  ninth  place,  the 
Epistles  of  Paul  are  placed  directly  after  the  Gospels,  as  if  in  a 
near  memory  of  the  very  great  respect  paid  to  Paul,  and  at  a 
time  at  which  the  thought  that  it  was  most  correct  to  place  most 
of  the  apostles — as  if  Acts  gave  the  deeds  of  all  the  apostles — and 
the  Twelve-Apostles  before  Paul,  had  not  yet  crystallised.  In 
the  tenth  place,  the  end  of  Mark  (16^-20)  is  not  there,  which  fact 
points  to  a  time  at  which  the  false  ending,  vv.^-^^,  had  not  yet 
been  generally  attached  to  that  Gospel.  And  in  the  eleventh 
place,  the  addition  of  Barnabas  and  Hermas  carries  us  back  to 
the  early  period  at  which  they  were  still  read  in  the  Church.  For 
all  these  reasons,  uncertain  as  all  such  datings  are,  it  is  proper 
palaeographically  and  theologically  to  assign  this  manuscript  to 
the  fourth  century. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  Eusebius'  Pamphilus  was  named 
some  distance  back,  and  his  library  at  Caesarea.  At  the  end 
of  the  book  of  Esther  is  a  subscription  which  refers  to  the 
comparison  and  correction  of  this  manuscript  with  a  manuscript 
of  Pamphilus',  which  is  called  "  very  old."  Adolf  Hilgenfeld  in 
Jena  found  that  this  manuscript  was  much  too  badly,  too 
incorrectly,  written  to  be  of  the  fourth  century,  and  he  declared 
that  if  this  manuscript  and  its  corrector  looked  up  to  a  manuscript 


LARGE   LETTER   GREEK   MANUSCRIPTS  339 

of  Pamphilus' — Pamphilus  died  in  the  year  309 — as  very  old,  it 
could  not  possibly  itself  be  of  the  fourth,  but  must  be  of  the  sixth 
century.  In  urging  this  latter  argument,  Hilgenfeld  overlooked 
the  fact  that  that  subscription  to  Esther  was  probably  written  as 
late  as  the  seventh  century,  at  which  time  the  corrector  might  well 
call  Pamphilus'  manuscript  very  old.  And  as  for  the  incorrect 
writing,  Hilgenfeld  regarded  the  Vatican  manuscript  as  of  the 
fourth  century,  and  it  was  as  bad  as  the  Sinaitic.  Dean  Burgon, 
of  Chichester,  named  a  number  of  points  which  seemed  to  him  to 
make  the  Sinaitic  appear  to  be  surely  younger  than  the  Vatican, 
whether  fifty  or  seventy-five  or  a  hundred  years.  But  Ezra  Abbot, 
of  Harvard,  showed  that  the  reasons  given  were  either  founded 
upon  imperfect  observation,  or  were  of  no  weight  for  the  proof 
of  the  dating  desired  by  the  dean.  A  palaeographer,  Victor 
Gardthausen,  of  Leipzig,  stated  that  the  forms  of  the  letters  found 
in  the  Sinaitic  manuscript  showed  that  it  had  been  written  about 
the  year  400 ;  and  he  urged  in  support  of  this  statement  particularly 
a  few  words  written  with  a  brush  on  the  wall  of  a  cell.  To  this 
it  may  be  freely  acknowledged,  that  if  there  were  good  reasons  for 
thinking  that  the  Sinaitic  manuscript  was  written  in  the  year  400, 
the  forms  of  the  letters  would  scarcely  place  any  bar  in  the  way. 
But  the  reasons  seem  to  point  to  an  earlier  date,  and  the  letters 
offer  no  bar  to  that.  It  may,  in  fact,  be  asserted  that  all  the  palaeo- 
graphical  material  that  we  to-day  have  in  hand  does  not  allow 
us  to  distinguish  definitely  between  forms  of  letters  possible  in 
331  and  forms  possible  in  400.  And,  finally,  it  is  really  not  easy 
to  comprehend  how  a  palaeographer  can  for  a  moment  entertain 
the  thought  of  comparing  the  forms  used  by  a  scribe  writing  with 
a  fine  pen  on  good  parchment  for  a  good  copy  of  a  sacred  book, 
with  the  forms  dashed  with  a  brush  on  the  wall  of  a  cell. 

I  insist  upon  it  that  we  do  not  know  when  the  Sinaitic 
manuscript  was  written,  yet  at  the  present  showing  of  the  evidence 
it  seems  to  me  that  the  best  tentative  date  to  work  upon  is  the 
year  331  named  above.  We  or  our  successors  are  going  to  know 
more  about  all  these  things  than  we  now  know. 

Tischendorf  when  he  returned  from  the  East  in  1859  set 
to  work  to  prepare  the  great  edition  of  the  manuscript.  I  do 
not  think  that  any  large  manuscript  before  or  since  was  ever 
edited  with  such  extraordinary  pains  and  accuracy.  Nor  do 
I  think  that  so  much  pains  ever  will  be  expended  again  upon 


340  THE  TEXT 

a  manuscript.  For  photography  and  photographic  printing  now 
render  type-setting  in  such  a  case  unnecessary.  He  caused 
five  different  sizes  of  type  to  be  cut,  and  he  endeavoured  so 
far  as  possible  to  render  in  the  edition  even  the  distances 
between  the  letters.  It  was  his  intention  to  publish  it  as  one 
of  the  monuments  to  commemorate  the  thousandth  anniversary 
of  the  Russian  Empire;  but  a  curious,  one  might  say  inex- 
plicable, piece  of  jealousy  on  the  part  of  some  of  his  enemies 
in  Russia  caused  that  to  be  forbidden.  It  appeared  in  four 
volumes  in  the  year  1862.  The  second  and  third  volumes 
contain  the  fragments  from  the  Old  Testament,  and  the  fourth 
volume  the  New  Testament  with  Barnabas  and  Hermas,  all  three 
of  which  volumes  are,  it  is  true,  printed,  yet  as  just  said  so  carefully 
printed  as  to  be  almost  as  good  as  facsimiles.  The  first  volume 
contains  the  preface,  the  commentary  of  phenomenal  accuracy 
and  fulness,  and  twenty-one  lithographic  plates  made  from 
photographs,  or,  in  the  case  of  a  few  things  from  other  manuscripts 
brought  in  for  comparison,  from  the  most  accurate  tracings  at 
command.  This  edition  placed  scholars  in  a  position  to  examine 
the  manuscript  independently,  and  it  was  interesting  to  observe 
that  Ezra  Abbot,  of  Harvard,  discovered  and  used  in  answering 
Burgon  some  facts  that  Tischendorf  himself  had  not  happened  to 
notice  in  reference  to  one  of  the  scribes.  This  edition  the 
Russian  emperor  presented  to  many  of  the  great  libraries.  He 
allowed  Tischendorf  to  have  a  number  of  copies.  In  the  year 
1863,  Tischendorf  published  the  New  Testament  in  a  quarto 
volume,  in  the  four  columns,  but  in  ordinary  Greek  type,  and 
with  one  facsimile.  In  the  year  1864  he  also  issued  a  New 
Testament  "from  the  Sinaitic  manuscript,"  dated  1865;  but  the 
text  that  he  gave  in  this  was  neither  the  Sinaitic  text  nor  a  good 
New  Testament  text,  and  was  therefore  of  no  proper  use  to 
anybody.  In  the  year  1867  he  published  a  brief  appendix  for 
the  Sinaitic,  the  Vatican,  and  the  Alexandrian  manuscripts,  a 
large  page  folio. 

The  Codex  Alexandrinus. 

The  next  manuscript  to  be  taken  up  is  that  Alexandrian 
manuscript  that  was  just  referred  to.  It  is  called  A,  and  was  the 
first  manuscript  to  receive  thus  a  large  letter  as  its  designation. 


LARGE  LETTER  GREEK  MANUSCRIPTS  34I 

That  set  the  fashion  for  the  use  of  capitals  to  denote  the 
manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament  in  the  large  or  uncial  writing. 
So  far  as  we  can  judge,  this  manuscript  was  probably  written  in 
the  last  half  of  the  fifth  century,  and  in  Egypt.  The  first  historical 
note  touching  it  is  that  it  was  presented  to  the  patriarch  of 
Alexandria  in  the  year  1098,  and  the  name  "Codex  Alexandrinus " 
is  given  to  it  because  of  this  fact.  In  Egypt  the  belief  was  that 
Saint  Thecla  had  written  it  with  her  own  hand,  as  an  Arabic 
note  in  the  first  of  the  four  volumes  states.  We  cannot  be  sure 
how  the  story  arose.  It  may  be  that  the  manuscript  was  written 
in  a  monastery  dedicated  to  Thecla.  Tregelles  made,  however, 
another  suggestion  that  looks  quite  plausible.  The  New 
Testament  volume  has  long  been  mutilated,  and  begins  now  in 
the  twenty-fifth  chapter  of  Matthew,  in  which  chapter  the  lesson 
for  Thecla's  Day  stands.  Tregelles  thought  that  Thecla's  name 
might  have  on  this  account  been  written  in  the  margin  above, 
which  has  been  cut  off,  and  that  therefore  the  Alexandrians  or 
Cairenes  or  other  Egyptians  imagined  that  Thecla  had  written  it. 
Such  stories  arise  very  easily.  It  is  not  a  year  since  I  visited  a 
women's  monastery  in  the  East  in  which  the  abbess  assured  me 
that  their  beautiful  manuscript  had  been  written  by  an  ancient 
saintly  woman,  whereas  I  found  in  it  the  name,  and  I  think  the 
date  of  the  man  who  wrote  it. 

In  the  seventeenth  century,  Cyril  Lucar  had  this  manuscript 
at  Constantinople  where  he  was  patriarch.  As  he  had  pre- 
viously been  patriarch  of  Alexandria,  one  would  suppose  that 
he  had  carried  it  with  him  to  the  new  chair.  It  has,  however, 
been  thought  by  some  that  the  manuscript  was  sent  to  Con- 
stantinople from  Mount  Athos.  We  do  not  know  about  that. 
We  do  know  what  was  done  with  it  in  the  year  1628,  for  Cyril 
Lucar  then  sent  it  as  a  present  to  the  king  of  England,  Charles 
the  First.  It  is  now  in  the  British  Museum,  where  the  New 
Testament  volume  lies  open  in  a  glass  case  so  that  everyone  can 
see  it.  This  manuscript  is  like  the  Sinaiticus,  the  Vaticanus,  and 
the  Codex  Ephraemi,  a  manuscript  of  the  Bible,  although  a  few 
leaves  are  lacking.  The  four  volumes  number  773  leaves.  It  is 
the  fourth  volume  in  which  the  New  Testament  is  to  be  found. 
It  contains  143  (144)  leaves;  the  extra  leaf  is  a  new  one  with  a 
table  of  contents. 

This  volume  gives,  besides  the  New  Testament,  the  letter 


342  THE  TEXT 

of  Clement  of  Rome  and  the  homily  which  is  called  Second 
Clement,  and  which  was  probably  sent  from  Rome  to  Cormth 
during  the  second  century.  The  leaves  are  32  centimetres 
high  and  26-3  broad.  The  writing  is  in  two  columns  of  from 
forty-nine  to  fifty-one  lines  each.  The  uncial  letters  are  small 
and  neat  and  simple.  The  greater  part  of  the  third  volume  of 
the  Old  Testament  is  in  a  different  hand  from  the  rest  of  the 
manuscript.  There  are  only  a  few  accents  in  the  first  four  lines 
of  the  two  columns  at  the  beginning  of  Genesis,  and  they  seem  to 
be  by  a  later  hand.  Occasionally  a  spiritus  or  an  apostrophe  is 
used.  The  period  sometimes  occurs ;  sometimes  a  vacant  space 
serves  as  punctuation.  The  paragraphs  are  marked  by  a  much 
larger  letter,  which  is  put  in  the  margin.  We  are  accustomed  to 
see  the  first  letter  of  the  first  word  of  a  paragraph  thus  enlarged 
and  put  in  the  margin.  It  is  therefore  surprising  to  observe  that 
this  is  often  by  no  means  the  case  in  the  manuscripts,  and  not  in 
this  fine  manuscript.  The  new  paragraph  begins  in  the  line 
where  it  happens  to  fall,  and  has  the  usual  size  of  letter.  But 
the  first  letter  of  this  new  paragraph  that  strikes  the  next  line  is 
enlarged  and  placed  in  the  margin.  For  us  that  is  much  like 
wriTing  a  word  thus.  At  the  beginnings  of  the  books  a  few 
lines  are  written  in  red  for  ornament.  Certain  leaves,  leaves  20 
to  95,  from  the  opening  verse  of  Luke  as  far  as  i  Cor.  10^ 
are  on  a  coarser  parchment,  and  appear  to  be  from  another 
hand.  As  for  the  itacistic  errors,  they  are  often  to  be  met  with  ; 
for  example,  at  being  exchanged  for  c,  ct  for  t  or  rj  for  i.  The 
sign  >  on  the  margin  calls  attention  to  the  quotations  from  the 
Old  Testament. 

The  Eusebian  sections  and  canons,  which  were  mentioned  in 
connection  with  the  Sinaitic  manuscript,  are  also  found  in  this 
manuscript.  It  has  also  the  larger  chapters,  and  at  the  be- 
ginning of  each  Gospel  the  list  of  the  chapters  in  each  with  the 
title  of  each  chapter.  The  title  of  each  chapter  belongs  also  in 
the  margin  of  the  page  on  which  the  chapter  is  found,  but  an 
English  bookbinder  cut  a  large  part  of  them  off.  The  subscrip- 
tions are  simple,  but  not  so  simple  as  in  the  Sinaitic,  since,  for 
example,  we  read  at  the  end  of  Matthew  dayyeXiov  Kara  fiarOaZov 
instead  of  merely  Kara  ixarOalov.  A  few  verses  are  lacking  at  four 
places  in  Genesis,  a  little  over  a  chapter  in  First  Samuel,  and 
about  thirty  psalms.     The  New  Testament  begins,  as  was  stated, 


LARGE  LETTER  GREEK  MANUSCRIPTS  343 

with  Matt.  25^,  and  there  is  a  gap  in  John  6^^  to  8^2^  and  in 
2  Cor.  4^3-12''.  One  leaf  is  lost  in  the  letter  of  Clement, 
and  the  last  two  leaves  of  Pseudo-Clement  are  gone.  It  is 
important  to  have  the  testimony  of  so  old  a  manuscript  in 
respect  to  the  story  of  the  adulteress,  John  7^^-81^  Happily  we 
can  surmount  the  difficulty  offered  by  the  fact  that  John  6^^  to 
8^2  is  lost.  For  by  counting  the  lines  we  can  prove  that  it  was 
not  in  the  book.  There  is  not  room  for  it.  By  means  of  the 
table  of  contents  above  referred  to,  we  see  that  the  eighteen 
psalms  of  Solomon  used  to  stand  at  the  end,  after  Pseudo- 
Clement.  Karl  Gottfried  Woide  published  the  New  Testament 
from  this  manuscript  in  the  year  1786,  and  B.  H.  Cowper  in  i860, 
and  E.  H.  Hansell,  with  three  other  manuscripts,  in  1864.  Finally, 
the  British  Museum  issued  a  photographic  edition  in  1878  and 
again  in  1880,  and  then  the  three  volumes  of  the  Old  Testament. 


The  Codex  Vaticanus. 

The  Vatican  manuscript  of  the  Bible  is  B.  It  is  in  one 
thick  volume.  The  leaves  used  to  be  somewhat  larger ;  now 
they  are  about  twenty-seven  centimetres  square.  Seven  hundred 
and  fifty-nine  leaves  are  preserved,  and  a  hundred  and  forty-two 
of  these  belong  to  the  New  Testament.  The  three  columns 
on  each  page  contain  forty  to  forty-four  lines  each,  but  in  the 
New  Testament  forty-two  lines.  The  parchment  is  very  fine,  and 
is  in  a  measure  like  vellum.  The  parchment  looked  to  me  like 
Western  parchment.  I  wish  I  were  able  to  see  it  again,  for  I 
have  seen  and  studied  parchment  a  great  deal  since  1886,  when 
I  examined  this  manuscript.  The  letters  in  which  the  text  is 
written  are  small  uncials,  simple,  and  without  breaks  between  the 
words.  The  original  scribe  did  not  add  spiritus  and  accents,  but 
there  is  occasionally  in  the  New  Testament  an  apostrophe.  As 
we  said  for  the  Sinaitic  manuscript,  so  we  must  here  emphasise 
the  fact  that  the  paragraphs  are  not  marked  by  larger  letters.  In 
some  cases  the  initial  letter  is  pushed  out  a  little,  a  trifle,  into 
the  margin.  The  small  letters  sometimes  used  at  the  end  of  a 
line  keep  to  the  old  forms.  The  sign  >  is  used  for  the  quota- 
tions from  the  Old  Testament,  just  as  in  the  Alexandrinus. 
There  are  plenty  of  the  itacistic  faults,  especially  the  exchange 


344  "     THE  TEXT 

of  ct  for  I.  The  later  forms,  so-called  "  Alexandrian  "  forms,  are 
used  often. 

In  the  Gospels  we  find  a  chapter  division  that  only  occurs 
besides  in  a  fragment  at  London.  The  book  of  Acts  has  two 
different  divisions  into  chapters.  The  more  singular  of  these 
two  divisions  seems  to  be  noted  in  part  in  the  Sinaitic  manuscript, 
thus  offering  another  indication  of  some  kind  of  a  connection 
between  these  two  books  in  the  days  of  their  making.  A  very 
interesting  observation  attaches  to  an  old  division  found  in  the 
Epistles,  for  it  does  not  appear  to  take  any  notice  of  Second 
Peter,  and  seems  therefore  to  be  the  work  of  someone  who 
rejected  that  Epistle.  Still  another  chapter  phenomenon  must  be 
noted.  The  Epistles  of  Paul  have  chapter  numbers,  as  now  and 
then  happens  in  the  manuscripts,  that  do  not  begin  afresh  with 
each  Epistle,  but  continue  from  Romans  to  the  last  Epistle  in  one 
series.  In  this  manuscript  Hebrews  follows  Thessalonians.  And, 
nevertheless,  these  chapter  numbers  show  that  in  the  book  in  which 
they  were  originally  given  to  the  chapters,  Hebrews  stood  imme- 
diately after  Galatians.  The  titles  and  subscriptions  are  very  simple. 
The  manuscript  is  less  neat  than  it  otherwise  would  be,  because  a 
later  hand  went  over  the  pale  letters  and  added  spiritus  and  accents. 

A  little  way  back  I  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  this 
manuscript  has,  a  great  exception  in  Greek  manuscripts,  ancient 
numbers  for  the  leaves.  That  these  numbers  are  not  from  a 
Greek  but  from  a  Semite  is  shown  by  the  circumstance  that 
they  are  not  on  the  recto  but  on  the  verso  of  the  leaves, 
where  the  Semites  put  their  numbers.  These  numbers  give  us  a 
chance  to  determine  the,  probably,  original  condition  of  the 
manuscript,  the  original  number  of  the  leaves  at  the  beginning 
of  the  book,  even  if  nothing  tells  us  how  many  leaves  are  lost  at 
the  end.  There  were  apparently  at  first  eight  leaves  at  the 
beginning  of  the  manuscript,  before  the  text  began.  For  manu- 
scripts, just  like  modern  books  with  the  numbers  of  the  pages, 
begin  to  count  their  regular  quires  with  the  regular  text.  Pre- 
faces and  the  like  at  the  beginning  of  the  volume  do  not  belong 
to  the  body  of  the  quires.  The  lines  drawn  in  the  parchment 
are  in  some  respects  peculiar,  but  it  was  not  possible  for  me  in 
1886  to  complete  my  examination  of~tliem.  They  probably 
betray  the  hands  of  different  workmen.  There  is  an  amusing 
circumstance   to  be  jmentioned  touching  this   manuscript.     On 


LARGE   LETTER  GREEK   MANUSCRIPTS  345 

many  of  the  leaves  a  sharp  eye  can  detect  the  myriad  lines  thai 
we  sometimes  see  in  paper  and  which  I  suppose  are  due  to  the 
wires  upon  which  the  paper  is  made.  Of  course,  parchment 
has  no  such  lines.  A  hasty  observer  might  declare  this  fine 
parchment  to  be  paper.  But  if  that  sharp  eye  should  look  still 
more  closely  it  would  in  some  places  find  Italian  words,  printed 
backwards,  it  is  true.  At  some  time  or  other,  without  doubt 
when  the  manuscript  was  bound  in  the  present  binding  and  was 
to  be  pressed,  paper  was  put  in  between  the  leaves  to  prevent 
them  from  printing  the  old  Greek  letters  off  upon  each  other. 
Under  such  conditions,  with  such  a  sacred  and  costly  manuscript, 
it  should  have  been  a  matter  of  course  to  use  for  this  purpose 
clean  thin  paper.  Instead  of  that  the  profane  binder  put  in 
ordinary  everyday  newspapers,  hence  those  marks. 

This  manuscript  contains  both  Testaments,  but  does  not 
appear  to  have  included  the  books  of  the  Maccabees.  There 
are  three  vacant  spaces.  At  the  beginning  almost  forty-six 
chapters  of  Genesis  are  lacking.  Nearly  thirty-two  psalms  are 
gone.  And  the  end  of  Hebrews  from  q'^"*  has  disappeared  with 
First  and  Second  Timothy,  Titus,  Philemon,  and  Revelation. 
The  close  of  Hebrews  and  the  Revelation  were  supplied  in 
the  fifteenth  century  out  of  a  manuscript  belonging  to  the  Cardinal 
Bessarion. 

Tischendorf  distinguished  three  scribes  in  this  manuscript. 
One  of  them  wrote  the  whole  New  Testament  and  apparently 
those  seven  leaves  of  the  Sinaitic  manuscript.  The  Sinaitic  was 
often  corrected.  The  Vatican  was  corrected  once,  doubtless  at 
the  time  of  writing,  and  once,  so  Tischendorf  thought,  in  the 
tenth  or  eleventh  century.  The  Roman  editors  placed  this 
second  corrector  in  the  fifteenth  century. 

This  manuscript  is  supposed,  as  we  have  seen,  to  have  come 
from  the  same  place  as  the  Sinaitic  manuscript.  I  have  said  that 
these  two  show  connections  with  each  other,  and  that  they  would 
suit  very  well  as  a  pair  of  the  fifty  manuscripts  written  at 
Cresarea  for  Constantine  the  Great.  Yet  I  have  not  failed  to 
call  attention  to  the  apparently  Western  parchment  of  this 
Vatican  manuscript,  and  I  have  seen  some  writing  belonging 
originally  to  Italy  which  seems  much  more  akin  to  the  Vatican 
hand  than  to  the  hand  that  wrote  the  Sinaitic.  We  must  wait 
and  examine  further. 


34^  THE  TEXT 

The  Vatican  Library  possessed  this  treasure  before  the  first 
catalogue,  which  was  made  in  the  year  1475.  ^^  ^^^  not,  how- 
ever, until  the  nineteenth  century  that  the  real  value  of  the 
manuscript  was  discovered.  The  discoverer  was  the  learned 
Roman  Catholic  professor  Leonhard  Hug,  who  long  taught 
in  Tubingen.  It  was  the  fortunes  and  the  misfortunes  of  war 
that  made  it  possible  for  Hug  to  examine  the  book.  The 
French  troops  annexed  the  manuscript  treasures  of  Italy — the 
stamp  of  the  Republique  Frangaise  may  still  be  seen  in  many 
of  the  great  Italian  libraries.  Thus  this  volume  was  in 
1809  at  Paris.  Hug  dated  it  at  the  middle  of  the  fourth 
century. 

But  it  was  then  years  before  the  manuscript  could  be  freely 
used  by  scholars.  And  that  was  due  to  an  unfortunate  piece 
of  work  on  the  part  of  the  learned  Cardinal  Mai,  who 
published  so  many  valuable  manuscripts.  This  manuscript 
was  worthy  of  his  highest  efforts,  and  for  some  unknown  reason 
it  was  the  worst  thing  he  ever  did,  and  he  knew  it.  It  was  a 
pity  that  he  did  not  burn  the  printed  sheets  and  begin  over 
again.  I  like  to  think  that  he  wished  to  do  that,  and  that  he 
was  not  allowed  to  do  it.  Yet  perhaps  he  could  not  bring 
himself  to  destroy  the  work  done.  His  edition  was  printed  in 
an  unconscionably  slovenly  manner  in  the  years  from  1828  to 
1838,  but  not  then  issued.  Tischendorf  went  to  Rome  in  1843 
and  spent  some  months  there,  but  was  only  allowed  to  study 
this  manuscript  for  six  hours  on  two  days.  He  made  the  most 
of  those  few  hours,  collating  important  passages  and  tracing  four 
facsimiles.  Tregelles  spent  five  months  at  Rome  in  the  year 
1845,  and  could  not  get  permission  to  examine  the  manuscript 
at  all.  He  remembered,  however,  some  readings  which  he 
observed  while  looking  at  the  manuscript  as  any  traveller  might. 
And  all  the  while  that  edition  of  Mai  was  lying  stowed  away. 
Finally,  Mai  died  in  the  year  1854.  His  edition  had  then 
reached  the  age  of  sixteen.  It  was  nineteen  years  old  before 
Carlo  Vercellone  actually  issued  four  volumes  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment and  a  fifth  containing  the  New  Testament.  Although  this 
edition  was  about  as  bad  as  bad  could  be,  it  was  notwithstanding 
possible  to  learn  something  about  the  hidden  manuscript  from 
it.  In  the  year  1859  a  slim  little  volume  was  published  by 
Vercellone,  which   was   not  very  accurate,  but  which  gave  the 


LARGE  LETTER  GREEK  MANUSCRIPTS  347 

New  Testament  from  this  manuscript  far  better  than  the  five 
thick  volumes  had  done. 

After  Tischendorf  had  published  the  Sinaitic  manuscript, 
he  conceived  the  plan  of  reproducing  the  Vatican  manuscript 
in  the  same  way.  It  was  a  great  pity  that  the  then  pope 
did  not  allow  him  to  do  it.  We  should  even  to-day  know 
far  more  about  the  manuscript,  had  he  received  permission. 
But  finally  he  gained  permission  to  examine  the  volume  for 
two  weeks,  three  hours  a  day,  I  suppose  the  library  hours. 
While  examining  it  he  either  wrote  twenty  pages  off  in  the 
three  columns  or  he  noted  just  where  the  lines  began  on  these 
pages,  so  that  he  knew  precisely  how  they  stood.  It  was  an 
unsatisfactory  and  hasty  way  of  working,  but  it  was  better  than 
nothing.  Upon  the  basis  of  that  work  he  published  a  quarto 
edition,  giving  those  twenty  pages  in  the  columns  and  lines,  and 
for  the  rest  merely  giving  each  column  as  a  paragraph.  It  was 
perhaps  a  part  of  the  bargain  for  that  work,  that  Tischendorf 
should  allow  the  pope  to  have  a  set  of  his  excellent  old  uncial 
types.  With  these  types  the  Roman  scholars  began  an  edition. 
Carlo  Vercellone  and  Giuseppe  Cozza  were  the  first  two.  When 
Vercellone  died  Cajetano  Sergio  took  up  the  work.  And 
Henrico  Fabiani  replaced  Sergio  after  his  eyes  had  grown  too 
weak.  The  volume  with  the  New  Testament  appeared  in  1868, 
and  the  closing  volume  with  the  preface  in  the  year  1881.  The 
distinction  between  the  different  hands  is  not  so  accurate  as  is 
desirable.  Giuseppe  Cozza -Luzi  published  a  photographic 
edition  in  the  year  1889. 

This  Vatican  manuscript  is  considered  by  a  great  many 
scholars  to  be  the  best  of  all  the  New  Testament  manuscripts. 
The  Sinaitic  and  the  Vatican  are,  from  the  standpoint  of  the 
history  of  the  text  as  thus  far  known,  by  far  the  two  best 
witnesses  for  the  oldest  text.  Wherever  they  were  written  and 
at  whatever  date,  they  represent,  it  would  appear,  as  both 
Tischendorf  and  Westcott  and  Hort  thought,  good  manuscripts 
of  the  second  century.  The  word  good  is  to  be  emphasised 
here.  If  the  given  view  be  correct,  they  represent  not  the 
current  re-wrought,  worked  over  manuscripts  of  the  second 
century,  but  such  as  retained  in  an  eminent  degree  the  text 
which  had  come  to  that  century  from  the  hands  of  the  original 
writers.     The  Vatican  manuscript  shows  in  the  Epistles  of  Paul 


348  THE  TEXT 

a  few  readings  from  those   current    manuscripts   of  the  second 
century,  but  not  very  many. 


The  Codex  Ephrjemi. 

We  have  still  one  great  manuscript  of  the  whole  Bible 
that  we  must  look  at,  that  is  to  say,  a  manuscript  which  at  first 
contained  both  the  Old  and  the  New  Testaments.  But  it  is,  alas  ! 
very  far  from  its  first  estate.  It  is  like  a  man  who  has  been 
maimed  in  the  wars.  Its  beauty  and  its  fulness  are  departed. 
In  the  first  place,  the  original  writing  had  faded  away.  Let  me 
observe  at  this  point  that  we  probably  should  assume  that 
all  the  inks,  the  common  inks  used  in  the  manuscripts,  were  at 
first  black,  or  as  nearly  black  as  the  makers  of  each  ink 
could  compass.  We  are  told  that  the  parchment  of  the  old 
manuscripts  was  washed  off  and  pumiced  off  in  order  to 
remove  the  writing.  Some  manuscripts  show  signs  of  such 
a  treatment.  Yet  I  think  that  in  a  large  number  of  cases 
the  ink  became  with  time  so  pale,  that,  although  a  scholar 
examining  it  closely  would  be  able  to  make  out  the  words, 
it  nevertheless  offered  no  particular  obstacle  to  a  new  use 
of  the  parchment  with  fresh  and  black  ink.  To  return  to 
this  manuscript,  we  must  first  say  that  it  is  in  the  National 
Library  at  Paris,  and  add  that  its  name  is  Codex  Ephrsemi,  or 
in  full  Codex  Ephraemi  Syri,  the  manuscript  of  Ephraim 
the  Syrian,  and  its  sign  is  the  large  letter  C.  This  name  tells  a 
tale.  That  fine  old  manuscript  of  the  Bible  had  been  pulled  to 
pieces  in  its  pallid  old  age.  Much  of  it  had  either  been  lost  or 
was  now  laid  aside.  The  original  had  perhaps  been  written 
in  Egypt  before  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century,  had  been 
corrected,  it  may  be,  in  Palestine  in  the  sixth  century,  and 
again  corrected  in  the  ninth  century  possibly  in  Constantinople, 
and  was  in  the  twelfth  century  thoroughly  used  up.  Thereupon 
someone  wrote  thirty  -  eight  treatises  of  Ephraim  the  Syrian 
on  it,  but  in  Greek.  I  say  on  it,  I  should  say  on  fragments  of  it, 
or  on  what  was  left  of  it. 

There  are  now  only  209  leaves,  of  which  145  belong  to 
the  New  Testament.  With  this  manuscript  we  reach  a  page 
of  a  single  column.     The  Sinaitic  has  four  columns,  the  Vatican 


LARGE  LETTER    GREEK   MANUSCRIPTS  349 

three,  the  Alexandrinus  two,  and  the  Ephraim  one.  There  are 
usually  forty-one  lines  in  a  column,  but  we  find  also  forty,  forty- 
two,  and  four  times  there  are  forty-six  lines.  The  parch- 
ment is  good  and  is  fine.  The  uncial  letters  are  a  trifle  larger 
than  those  in  the  three  manuscripts  just  named.  There  are 
no  spiritus  or  accents,  and  the  apostrophe  does  not  often 
occur.  There  is  but  little  punctuation.  A  colon  is  used, 
and  after  it  a  space  as  wide  as  a  letter  is  left  free.  In  this 
manuscript  the  larger  letters  are  frequently  used,  and  that 
not  merely  where  paragraphs  begin.  One  ornamental  part 
of  the  writing  of  this  manuscript  was  unfortunate  for  a  little  of 
the  text.  Much  like  the  Alexandrinus,  the  first  three  lines 
of  each  book  were  written  in  red.  That  was  very  effective. 
The  red  fluid,  however,  is  not  an  ink,  but  an  acidless  prepara- 
tion of  colour,  and  the  consequence  is  that  anything  written 
in  red  has  but  the  slightest,  the  most  superficial  hold  on  the 
parchment,  and  with  time,  if  the  given  leaves  be  much  thrown 
about,  it  vanishes  almost  entirely.  In  case  a  leaf  of  parchment 
is  washed  and  pumiced,  of  course  that  is  the  end  of  colours  in 
the  text.  The  catalogues  of  the  chapters  w^ere  placed  at 
the  beginnings  of  the  books,  and  the  little  chapters  or  the 
Eusebian  sections  were  noted  on  the  margin.  We  do  not 
find  the  numbers  of  the  Eusebian  canons  under  the  numbers  of 
the  sections,  but  that  may  very  well  be  because  they  were 
written  in  red  and  have  vanished.  Only  the  Gospels  have 
chapters.  The  Acts,  the  Catholic  Epistles,  and  the  Epistles 
of  Paul  have  not  the  Euthalian  chapters,  and  Revelation  has 
not  the  chapters  of  Andrew  of  Csesarea.  The  subscriptions  are 
very  simple. 

No  one  will  be  surprised  to  learn  that  in  a  manuscript 
that  has  been  so  much  buffeted  about,  words  or  letters  are 
often  lacking,  and  the  upper  black  writing  covers  many  a 
letter.  It  is  under  such  circumstances  the  merest  lottery,  what 
may  happen  to  be  left  over.  As  a  fact  every  book  of  the 
New  Testament  is  represented  save  Second  John  and  Second 
Thessalonians.  This  manuscript  is  closely  connected  with 
TischendorPs  early  work,  and  gives  a  proof  of  his  attention  to 
words  WTitten  by  Lachmann.  The  latter  said  in  a  note  to  an 
article  in  a  theological  journal  that  "Parisian  scholars  could 
win   immortal  merit   in  reference  to  the  criticism    of  the    New 


350  THE  TEXT 

Testament  by  printing  the  royal  Codex  Ephraim  and  the  Claro- 
montanus."  The  moment  that  Tischendorf  had  habilitated,  that 
is,  had  won  his  place  as  a  privatdozent  in  the  theological 
faculty  at  Leipzig,  he  started  off  to  Paris  and  set  about  this 
work.  That  was  in  1840,  and  in  1843  the  fragments  of  the 
New  Testament  appeared,  accompanied  by  a  careful  commen- 
tary on  about  1500  passages  that  were  doubtful  or  that  had 
been  corrected,  as  well  as  an  essay  on  i  Tim.  3^®.  The  Old 
Testament  fragments  were  issued  in  1845,  and  thus  this  old 
writing,  which  Pierre  AUix,  who  died  in  17 17,  had  discovered, 
was  given  to  the  world  by  Saxon  industry.  It  has  sometimes 
been  said  that  Tischendorf  spoiled  this  manuscript  by  using  a 
bad  reagent  to  draw  forth  the  old  letters  that  had  grown  so  pale. 
That  was  a  mistake.  Simonin  put  Gioberti  tincture  on  some  of 
them  with  the  librarian's  permission  in  1834,  and  that  was  the 
year  at  which  Tischendorf  left  school  and  went  to  the  university. 
So  much  for  the  four  great  manuscripts  of  the  Bible  that  stand 
forth  in  the  history  and  work  of  textual  criticism  like  David's 
mighty  men.  Yet  the  other  manuscripts  that  give  us  but  parts 
of  the  New  Testament  are  not  to  be  despised.  Some  of  them 
are  of  very  great  importance. 


The  Codex  Bezje. 

The  Vatican  manuscript  recalled  to  us  the  vicissitudes  of 
times  of  war.  The  next  one,  it  may  be  with  a  companion, 
came  to  light  amid  similar  scenes.  We  have  two  manuscripts 
for  which  we  use  the  sign  D.  One  of  them  is  the  "Codex 
Bezae,"  or  Beza's  manuscript,  in  the  University  Library  at 
Cambridge,  England,  and  the  other  is  the  "Codex 
Claromontanus  "  in  the  National  Library  at  Paris.  Both  these 
manuscripts  belonged  to  Theodore  de  Beze,  the  celebrated 
Frenchman  who  passed  over  to  Switzerland  and  became  the 
successor  of  Calvin  as  leader  of  the  Genevan  Church.  He  said, 
when  he  in  the  year  1581  gave  the  former  manuscript  to 
the  University  of  Cambridge,  that  it  had  long  lain  in  the  dust  in 
the  monastery  of  St.  Irenaus  at  Lyons,  and  that  it  had  been  found 
there  during  the  civil  war  in  1562.  Just  at  that  time,  between 
1 56 1    and     1563,    Beze     had     returned    to     France    because 


LARGE  LETTER  GREEK   MANUSCRIPTS  35  I 

Protestantism  was  apparently  gaining  due  recognition.  In  the 
last  edition  of  his  notes  on  the  New  Testament  in  the  year  1598, 
however,  he  called  this  manuscript  "  The  Codex  Claromontanus." 
And  on  the  back  of  the  title  of  the  manuscript  now  at 
Paris,  Beze  wrote  that  it  was  found  in  the  monastery  in 
Clermont-en-Beauvoisis,  to-day  the  chief  city  of  the  department 
Oise.  Clermont  probably  then  still  belonged  to  the  Condes,  so 
that  he  may  well  have  gotten  the  books  through  the  mediation 
of  some  officer  or  soldier  from  Conde's  guards.  It  does  not  make 
much  difference  whether  he  got  one  from  Lyons  and  the  other 
from  Clermont,  a  hundred  and  thirty  or  forty  kilometres  distant, 
or  both  from  Clermont.  The  manuscripts  doubtless  belonged 
together  originally.  There  are  among  other  possibilities  two 
worth  mentioning,  namely,  on  the  one  hand,  that  the  reference  of 
the  Lyons  manuscript  to  Clermont  was  merely  a  momentary  slip 
of  the  memory ;  or,  on  the  other  hand,  that  Beze  learned  after  1 58 1 
that  this  manuscript  was  not  as  he  had  previously  supposed  from 
Lyons,  but  from  Clermont.  Perhaps  the  trooper  had  forgotten 
exactly  where  he  had  picked  them  up,  and  Beze  may  later  in 
some  way  have  gotten  surer  word  of  the  place. 

Both  manuscripts  are  of  the  sixth  century,  both  are  Greek  and 
Latin,  and  both  place  the  text  before  us  that  appears  to  have 
been  most  widely  spread  during  the  latter  part  of  the  second 
century,  the  Re-Wrought  Text,  the  text  that  was  worked  over  anew 
by  many  a  hand.  It  would  perhaps  be  better  to  say,  not  the 
text,  but,  one  phase  of  the  text  current.  For  that  text  was  in 
a  way  chameleon  like,  ever  changing,  and  varying  doubtless 
provincially  as  well.  The  Cambridge  manuscript  is  26  x  21.5 
centimetres,  and  contains  409  leaves  (or  415  with  nine  new 
ones).  Originally  it  must  have  contained  at  least  510  leaves. 
Each  page  has  one  column;  the  Greek  is  on  the  left-hand 
page.  The  column  numbers  thirty-three  lines.  The  letters  are 
of  about  the  same  size  as  those  in  the  Ephraim  manuscript. 
The  Latin  letters  are  in  a  way  assimilated  to  the  Greek 
letters,  being  rounded  off  like  the  latter.  The  words  run 
together,  save  in  titles  and  subscriptions.  Here  we  meet  a  text 
that  is  not  written  straight  ahead,  but  which  is  cut  up  into 
lines  according  to  the  sense.  These  are  the  oldest  sense-lines 
for  this  part  of  the  New  Testament.  The  first  letter  of  a  section 
is   thrust   into  the  margin,  but   is   usually  of  the  same  size  as 


352  THE  TEXT 

the  other  letters.     A  larger  letter  is  in  some  places  put  in  to 
show  a  division  of  sense  in  the  middle  of  a  line. 

This  manuscript  contains  the  four  Gospels  and  the  Acts,  but 
there  are  a  few  gaps  in  it.  The  Gospels  are  in  the  order  Matthew, 
John,  Luke,  Mark,  with  the  two  Twelve-Apostles  first  and  the 
friends  of  apostles  following.  There  is  a  singular  chapter  division 
which  assigns  to  Matthew  in  Greek  so  far  as  this  Gospel  is  pre- 
served 583  chapters,  in  Latin  590,  to  John  165  and  in  Latin  169, 
to  Luke  136  and  in  Latin  143,  to  Mark  148,  and  to  Acts  235 
chapters.  Each  book  has  the  first  three  lines  in  red  letters,  and 
red  and  black  lines  alternate  in  the  subscriptions.  The  Catholic 
Epistles  apparently  used  to  be  in  this  volume.  They  present  us  a 
problem.  In  the  first  place,  it  is  curious  that  they  should  have 
stood  before  and  not  after  Acts.  We  find  before  Acts  the  last 
five  verses  of  Third  John,  but  only  in  Latin,  and  the  subscription 
follows  :  "  Third  John  closes,  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  begins." 
That  assures  us  that  they  were  before  Acts,  and  it  shows  us  that 
Jude  either  was  left  out  or  must  have  stood  at  some  other  place 
than  its  usual  one  after  Third  John.  But  it  is  possible  after  all 
that  the  Catholic  Epistles  were  not  all  here,  for  Wilhelm  Bousset 
calculates  that  there  is  just  room  for  the  Revelation  and  the 
three  Epistles  of  John.  If  the  Gospel  of  John  had  been  at  the 
close  of  the  four  Gospels  as  usual,  instead  of  following  upon 
Matthew,  such  a  position  for  Revelation  and  i,  2  and  3  John 
would  have  given  us  John  all  in  one.  Frederick  Henry  Ambrose 
Scrivener  published  this  manuscript  in  1864,  and  in  the  year 
1899  a  fine  photographic  edition  was  issued  in  two  volumes  at 
the  expense  of  the  University. 

Scrivener  thought  that  fifteen  different  hands  corrected  this 
volume.  The  most  important  of  these  were  the  first  four.  The 
first  one  made  about  181  changes  in  a  careful  beautiful  hand  in  the 
sixth  century.  The  second  was  probably  of  the  seventh  century, 
and  made  about  327  changes,  besides  adding  some  spiritus  and 
accents  and  other  signs.  The  third,  it  may  be  towards  the  end 
of  the  seventh  century,  made  130  changes;  and  the  fourth,  of  the 
same  age,  160  changes,  chiefly  in  the  Acts.  This  manuscript  was 
probably  written  in  the  West.  The  relation  of  the  Greek  to  the 
Latin  text  has  been  much  discussed.  The  Greek  has  been  thought 
independent,  and  has  been  thought  dependent  upon  an  Eastern 
version,    and    has    been   also   thought   to   be   dependent   upon 


LARGE  LETTER   GREEK   MANUSCRIPTS  353 

the  Latin  text  at  its  side.  Curiously  enough  some  Latin  forms 
have  been  introduced  into  the  Greek  text.  For  several  years 
there  has  much  been  written  about  the  text  represented  by  this 
manuscript,  which  used  to  be  called  the  "Western  Text,"  a 
totally  false  name.  The  effort  was  made  to  place  it  in  value 
before  the  Sinaitic  and  the  Vatican  manuscripts.  The  real 
state  of  the  case,  so  far  as  the  material  in  our  hands  permits 
a  decision,  seems  to  be  that  this  text  is  the  current  corrupted 
text  of  the  later  second  century.  Be  this  the  case,  then  it 
is  clear  that  we  may  often  find  in  passages  that  are  not  corrupted 
an  agreement  with  the  two  great  manuscripts  just  named,  and  we 
do  find  such  agreement  in  many  cases.  The  Latin  text  was 
probably  modified  so  as  to  accord  better  with  the  Greek  text. 

In  a  parenthesis  it  may  here  be  observed  that  there  are  in 
the  usual  lists  of  the  uncial  manuscripts  of  the  Gospels  some 
manuscripts  that  never  should  have  been  there.  The  most 
absurd  case  is  that  of  the  manuscript  with  the  sign  F"*,  which 
is  an  Old  Testament  manuscript  that  merely  has  a  few  scattered 
verses  of  the  New  Testament  on  the  margin.  And  then  there 
are  eight  manuscripts,  all  but  one  clearly  psalters,  which  contain 
the  three  Canticles  from  the  first  and  second  chapters  of  Luke  or 
parts  of  them.  These  belong  among  the  lesson-books,  not 
among  the  uncial  manuscripts  of  the  Gospel  text. 


E  G  H  I  P  K  L. 

The  uncial  manuscript  of  the  Gospels  known  by  the  letter 
E  is  at  Basel  in  the  University  Library,  and  is  of  the  eighth 
century.  There  are  various  gaps  in  the  original  text  of  Luke, 
some  of  which  a  later  hand  supplied. — The  manuscript  F  is  at 
Utrecht  in  the  University  Library,  and  is  of  the  ninth  or  tenth 
century.  A  great  many  passages  are  missing.  —  The  two 
manuscripts  G  and  H  have  each  a  half  a  leaf  in  Trinity 
College  at  Cambridge.  They  belonged  once  to  the  celebrated 
Hamburg  pastor  and  scholar  Johann  Christoph  Wolf,  and  he 
sent  these  fragments  to  Bentley,  as  a  cloth  merchant  sends  a 
pattern  of  cloth,  simply  to  let  him  know  what  the  manuscripts 
looked  like.  The  former  manuscript,  G,  is  now  in  the  British 
Museum.     It  is  of  the  ninth  or  tenth  century.     The  latter,  IT, 


354  THE  TEXT 

is  in  the  City  Library  at  Hamburg,  and  is  also  of  the  ninta  or 
tenth  century. — The  letter  I  denotes  twenty-eight  leaves  at  St. 
Petersburg,  in  the  Imperial  Library,  that  are  of  the  fifth  century, 
and  were  written  anew  with  a  Georgian  text  in  the  tenth 
century. — The  letter  P  stands  for  two  good  leaves  of  the  fifth 
century  from  Egypt,  containing  parts  of  the  thirteenth  and 
sixteenth  chapters  of  John.  These  leaves  were  faded  or  the 
Greek  was  rubbed  off  in  the  ninth  century,  and  Syriac  was 
written  upon  them,  and  then  in  the  tenth  or  eleventh  century  that 
had  faded  or  was  rubbed  off,  and  Syriac,  hymns  of  Severus',  ap- 
peared as  the  third  writing.  Thus  they  are  doubly  palimpsest. — 
The  manuscript  for  the  sign  K  is  in  the  National  Library  at  Paris, 
and  is  of  the  ninth  century.  It  was  written  by  a  monk  named 
Basil  and  bound  by  a  monk  named  Theodulos,  and  as  they 
besought  the  Virgin  Mary  and  Saint  Eutychius  to  accept  it 
and  to  pray  for  them,  it  was  doubtless  written  for  a  church  or 
a  monastery,  which  would  then  mean  the  Church  of  the 
Monastery,  dedicated  to  St.  Eutychius. — The  manuscript  L  is 
a  particularly  good  one.  It  is  also  in  the  library  at  Paris,  and 
stands  there  just  before  the  manuscript  K.  It  is  of  the  eighth 
centJiry,  and  has  coarse  and  thick  parchment.  It  is  not  well 
written,  and  it  may  be  that  the  scribe  who  copied  it  did  not 
understand  Greek.  There  are  five  small  gaps  in  it.  Now  this 
is  one  of  the  best  later  copies  of  the  four  Gospels.  Its  text  is 
extraordinarily  good,  and  often  agrees  with  the  text  of  the  great 
Vatican  manuscript. 

M  N  O  P  Q. 

The  letter  M  stands  for  a  Parisian  manuscript  of  the  end  of 
the  ninth  century  that  doubtless  came  from  the  East,  for  it  has 
Arabic  writing  in  it. — The  manuscript  marked  N  has  had  a  varied 
fate.  There  were  two  leaves  at  Vienna,  four  at  London,  and  six 
at  Rome.  Then  thirty-three  turned  up  on  the  island  of  Patmos, 
and  a  few  years  ago  the  Russian  ambassador  at  Constantinople, 
now  at  Paris,  succeeded  in  getting  182  leaves  more,  which  have 
been  placed  in  the  Imperial  Library  at  St.  Petersburg.  That 
later  part  of  the  manuscript  lived  an  exciting  life  for  a  few 
years  before  it  was  thus  purchased.  It  was  in  the  village 
Sarumsachly,    about    forty    kilometres    north    of    Kaisarie,    in 


LARGE  LETTER   GREEK  MANUSCRIPTS  355 

Cappadocia  that  was.  Once  the  bishop  of  the  diocese  is 
said  to  have  caused  it  to  be  stolen.  The  villagers,  however, 
got  wind  of  the  robbery  and  chased  the  thieves.  When  they 
caught  them  they  gave  them  a  sound  beating,  dusted  their 
garments  in  the  Connaught  fashion,  and  carried  the  book 
back  home  again.  This  is  a  purple  manuscript,  and  was 
probably  written  at  the  close  of  the  sixth  century.  The  leaves 
are  36  x  26*5  centimetres,  and  now  227  leaves  are  known. 
The  pages  have  two  columns  of  sixteen  lines  each.  The 
text  is  written  in  silver  letters,  and  the  names  of  God  and 
Jesus  are  in  gold.  In  the  time  of  the  Roman  emperors  purple 
manuscripts  were  the  noble  books.  They  were  not  practical, 
but  they  cost  a  great  deal,  and  they  looked  distinguished.  A 
letter  written  by  Theonas,  who  is  supposed  to  have  been  bishop 
of  Alexandria  a  little  before  the  year  300,  refers  to  them.  He 
wrote  to  a  Christian  named  Lucian,  who  had  been  made  the 
overseer  having  the  closer  attendants  of  the  emperor  under  his 
care.  Theonas  told  him,  in  speaking  of  the  librarian,  that  this 
official  should  not  make  a  point  of  writing  whole  manuscripts 
on  purple  parchment  and  in  gold  letters,  unless  the  monarch 
specially  asked  to  have  it  done.  The  text  offers  many  good 
readings.  H.  S.  Cronin  published  the  text  in  1899. — There 
are  in  the  library  at  St.  Petersburg  two  fragments  also  on  purple 
parchment,  and  also  written  probably  in  the  sixth  century,  but 
with  golden  letters.  —  The  letter  O  signifies  eight  leaves  of 
John,  of  the  ninth  century,  apparently  written  in  the  monastery 
of  Dionysius  on  Mount  Athos.  They  are  now  at  Moscow  in  the 
library  of  the  Synod. — At  Wolfenbiittel,  where  Lessing  was  once 
librarian,  there  is  a  manuscript  of  the  "  Origins  "  of  Isidore  of 
Sevilla,  Isidorus  Hispalensis.  Its  chief  value,  at  least  for  us, 
lies  beneath  the  words  of  Isidore.  For  three  old  manuscripts 
contributed  leaves  to  this  volume.  One  contained  Wulfila's 
Gothic  translation  of  Romans,  and  the  two  others,  which  we 
call  P  and  Q,  contain  Gospel  fragments  in  Greek. — The  one 
named  P  is  of  the  sixth  century,  and  consists  of  forty-three 
leaves,  with  two  columns  and  twenty-four  lines  in  each  column, 
containing  fragments  from  all  four  Gospels.  Tischendorf 
published  the  text  in  1869.  The  text  is  fairly  good. — The 
other  fragments,  Q,  are  confined  to  Luke  and  John.  There 
are  thirteen  leaves  of  them,  with  two  columns  and  twenty-eight 


356  THE  TEXT 

lines  in  the  column.     These  are  of  the  fifth  century.     The  ttxl 
is  also  fairly  good, 

R  S  T  U  V. 

The  letter  R  offers  us  a  manuscript  of  the  sixth  century 
in  the  British  Museum,  having  forty-eight  leaves,  with  two 
columns  and  twenty-five  lines  in  a  column.  There  is  a  thick 
and  black  Syriac  text,  writings  of  Severus  of  Antioch,  written 
in  the  ninth  century  over  the  Greek,  and  making  the  read- 
ing of  the  ancient  text  more  difficult.  This  volume  was 
brought  to  the  British  Museum  in  the  year  1847  from  the 
monastery  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  a  Coptic  monastery  in  the 
Nitrian  desert,  seventy  miles  north-west  from  Cairo.  William 
Cureton  read  and  published  four  thousand  verses  of  the  Iliad 
that  were  under  the  Syriac  text,  and  Tischendorf  published  the 
fragments  of  Luke  in  1857.  —  The  letter  S  presents  to  us  the 
first  manuscript  in  our  review  which  has  a  hard  and  sure  date. 
It  is  in  the  Vatican  Library,  and  was  written  just  before  the 
middle  of  the  tenth  century,  in  the  year  949.  It  was  written 
by  a  monk  named  Michael. — The  letter  T  represents,  with  a 
series  of  small  letters  to  distinguish  the  different  manuscripts, 
a  number  of  fragments,  some  larger  some  smaller,  of  the 
centuries  from  the  fourth  (or  the  third?)  up  to  the  ninth  or 
tenth.  This  group  is  connected  with  Egypt  and  with  Coptic 
scribes. — The  letter  U  represents,  like  K  and  M,  a  complete 
manuscript  of  the  four  Gospels.  It  is  of  the  ninth  or  tenth 
century  and  is  in  the  library  of  St.  Mark  at  Venice.  The 
text  is  of  a  late  cast. — The  manuscript  known  as  V  is  in  the 
library  of  the  Synod  at  Moscow,  and  is  of  the  ninth  century. 


W  X  Y  Z. 

Somewhat  like  T,  the  letter  W  brings  again  many  fragments 
of  the  Gospels  in  various  libraries,  dating  from  the  seventh  to 
the  ninth  century. — The  letter  X  is  one  of  the  manuscripts 
that  have  an  uncial  text  combined  with  a  commentary  written 
in  minuscles.  It  is  in  the  University  Library  at  Munich,  and  is 
of  the  tenth  century.     The  order  of  the  Gospels  is  Matthew, 


LARGE  LETTER   GREEK   MANUSCRIPTS  357 

John,  Luke,  Mark.  The  Gospel  according  to  Matthew  is 
furnished  with  a  full  commentary  drawn  from  Chrysostom, 
and  so  is  the  Gospel  according  to  John.  The  commentary 
to  Luke  contains  many  references  to  what  has  already  been 
discussed  above  in  Matthew.  By  this  time  the  whole  contents 
of  the  Gospels  have  been  treated,  and  therefore  Mark  has  no 
commentary  at  all. — There  are  fourteen  leaves  in  the  Royal 
Library  at  Munich,  of  the  ninth  or  tenth  century,  which  are 
denoted  by  X^  They  contain  the  beginning  of  Luke,  and 
have  a  commentary  in  small  or  minuscle  writing.  —  Under 
the  letter  Y  we  find  six  leaves  of  the  eighth  century  in  the 
Barberini  Library  at  Rome.  The  text  is  from  John  and 
is  good.  —  In  Dublin  we  have  the  manuscript  Z  in  Trinity 
College,  a  sixth  century  palimpsest  with  an  extraordinarily 
good  text  of  fragments  of  Matthew.  It  agrees  with  the 
Sinaitic  especially,  but  also  with  the  Vatican  and  with  the 
Codex  Bezae.  It  was  published  by  John  Barret  in  1801,  and 
again  by  Thomas  Kingsmill  Abbott  in  1880,  with  three  very 
fine  facsimiles. 

r— The  Codex  A. 

Now  we  come  to  Greek  letters  as  signs,  and  begin  with 
r,  which  is  partly  in  the  Bodleian  Library  at  Oxford  and 
partly  in  the  Imperial  Library  at  St.  Petersburg.  There  is  a 
tantalisingly  imperfect  date  in  it,  so  that  we  are  almost  as  wise 
without  it  as  w4th  it.  It  is  probably  of  the  ninth  or  tenth  century. 
The  text  is  of  a  late  cast,  but  it  sometimes  has  fairly  good 
readings.  Tischendorf  brought  it  in  two  parts  from  an  Eastern 
monastery. — The  next  manuscript.  A,  in  the  library  of  the  Stift 
at  St.  Gallen  in  Switzerland,  is  in  many  ways  interesting.  It  is  of 
the  ninth  or  tenth  century,  and  contains  198  leaves  of  one  column, 
with  from  seventeen  to  twenty-eight  lines  on  the  page.  The  text 
is  both  Greek  and  Latin.  The  Greek  uncial  letters  are  rough  and 
coarse,  and  the  Latin  is  in  small  writing  between  the  lines.  The 
writing  is  not  very  straight,  so  that  the  whole  appearance  of  the 
manuscript  is  a  little  uncouth.  There  is  sometimes  a  large  letter 
in  the  middle  of  a  line,  showing  that  it  was  copied  fiom  a 
manuscript  written  in  sense-lines.  Almost  everywhere  we  find  a 
period  or  a  point  after  each  Greek  word,  but  the  words  are 


358  THE  TEXT 

sometimes  not  rightly  divided.  We  can  see  clearly  that  the 
scribe  was  more  used  to  writing  Latin  than  Greek.  He  some- 
times confused  letters  that  looked  alike ;  for  example,  N  and  II, 
Z  and  H,  P  and  the  Latin  R.  The  larger  letters  are  rather 
smeared  over  than  painted  with  different  colours.  The  titles 
for  the  chapters  stand  often  in  the  middle  of  the  text. 
There  are  Greek  notes  here  and  there,  which  mention 
Godeschalk,  who  died  in  866,  and  a  later  hand  names 
Aganon,  who  died  in  941,  whereas  we  are  more  accustomed 
to  find  the  names  of  Origen  and  Basil  and  Chrysostom  in 
the  manuscripts. 

One  interesting  thing  about  this  manuscript  is,  that  it  seems 
to  have  been  written  by  an  Irish  monk,  and  perhaps  at  St.  Gallen 
itself,  in  the  ninth  or  tenth  century.  Thus  here  for  the  second  time 
Northwestern  Europe  appears  in  our  review  of  the  manuscripts. 
Further,  this  volume  is,  if  I  am  not  mistaken,  one  of  a  group  of 
three,  probably  written  by  the  same  monk  at  the  same  time.  One 
of  the  other  manuscripts  is  at  Dresden,  and  we  shall  have  to 
describe  it  among  the  manuscripts  of  the  Epistles  of  Paul  as  G. 
And  the  third  is  a  psalter,  which  I  saw  at  the  library  at  St. 
Gallen.  But  another  thing  in  A  points  us  back  to  a  much 
earlier  period.  There  was  a  time,  as  we  have  seen,  at  which 
each  Gospel  was  written  on  its  own  roll.  I  say  "  roll,"  because 
we  do  not  suppose  that  this  individualising,  or  this  continued 
separate  life  of  the  single  Gospels,  lasted  up  to  the  years  in  which 
leaf-books  were  made.  Now  so  long  as  the  Gospels  thus  existed 
separately,  each  could  have  its  own  experiences,  its  own  good 
or  evil  fortunes.  Each  could  wander  quite  alone  into  this  or 
that  province,  and  be  corrected  and  copied  off  without  reference 
to  the  others.  And  conversely  each  could  come  into  any 
province  and  exist  there  in  a  form  different  from  that  found 
usually  in  the  given  province.  We  could  even  imagine  it  pos- 
sible that  a  Christian  should  have  happened  to  become  the 
possessor  of  four  separate  rolls,  one  of  each  Gospel,  no  two  of 
which  came  from  the  same  place,  and  contained  the  same  cast 
of  text. 

Let  us  now  suppose,  however,  a  more  likely  case,  namely 
that  a  man  had  three  Gospels  in  the  style  of  text  usual  in  his 
neighbourhood,  and  that  his  fourth  roll  with  the  remaining 
Gospel  was  from  another  province ;  that  it  had  been  bought  by 


LARGE   LETTER   GREEK  MANUSCRIPTS  359 

him  when  on  a  journey,  or  brought  to  him  by  some  strange 
Christian  from  afar.  Taking  a  further  step  we  observe  that  this 
possessor  of  three  rolls  of  one  cast  of  text,  and  of  a  fourth  roll 
of  a  different  cast  of  text,  determines  to  have  his  four  Gospels 
all  copied  off  into  one  roll,  or,  if  the  invention  of  leaf-books  has 
been  made  in  between,  to  have  them  copied  into  a  single  leaf- 
book.  The  consequence  is,  that  we  at  once  see  the  difference 
between  the  kinds  of  text.  This  is  what  happened  to  the  manu- 
script now  under  consideration.  Matthew,  Luke,  and  John  are 
in  it  of  a  rather  late  kind  of  text,  and  give  us  but  rarely  old 
readings.  Mark,  on  the  contrary,  offers  to  us  a  text  that  is 
more  like  the  text  of  the  Ephraim  manuscript,  and  of  the 
manuscript  that  has  the  sign  L,  and  has  many  a  good  reading, 
many  an  old  one.  Therefore  when  A  is  quoted  for  a  reading 
in  the  gospel  according  to  Mark,  it  has  a  much  greater  value 
than  when  it  is  quoted  for  Matthew  or  Luke  or  John.  H.  C. 
M.  Rettig  published  this  manuscript  in  facsimile  in  the  year 
1836,  in  a  most  excellent  manner.  I  can  recall  no  edition  of 
a  New  Testament  manuscript  before  the  exceptional  editions 
of  Tischendorf  and  of  his  day  that  could  be  compared  in 
exactness  to  this  edition  by  Rettig. 


© — A  AND   566. 

Under  the  letter  0  we  have,  distinguished  by  added  small  a,  b, 
etc.,  eight  fragments  of  Gospel  manuscripts,  all  but  part  of  one  at 
St.  Petersburg.  They  range  from  the  sixth  to  the  ninth  or  tenth 
century. — The  manuscript  A  is  at  Oxford  in  the  Bodleian,  and  is  of 
the  ninth  or  tenth  century.  It  offers  a  curious  problem.  It  con- 
tains Luke  and  John.  Now  the  small  letter,  minuscle,  manuscript 
numbered  566  seems  to  be  the  first  part  of  this  very  volume.  That 
a  man  should,  in  the  years  which  were  on  the  margin  between 
capital  or  uncial  letters  and  small  or  minuscle  letters,  begin  a 
manuscript  in  the  older  way  in  the  large  letters  and  then  at  the 
end  of  Mark  say  :  Now  I  must  try  the  new  letters  : — that  would 
not  be  strange.  But  it  is  strange  that  he  should  write  Matthew 
and  Mark  in  the  new  small  letter  and  then  say :  I  am  tired  of 
that.  I  shall  go  back  to  the  old,  large,  and  fine  letters.  It  is 
like  the  wine  at  Cana.     The  scribe  has  kept  the  good  letters  for 


360  THE  TEXT 

the  end.  This  manuscript  has  a  good  pedigree  and  one  that 
is  down  in  writing,  although  we  must  take  the  beginning  of  it 
from  that  former  small  letter  part.  At  the  end  of  Matthew  we 
read  in  curt  translation  :  "  Gospel  according  to  Matthew :  written 
and  corrected  from  the  ancient  manuscripts  in  Jerusalem :  those 
kept  in  the  holy  mountain:  in  2514  lines,  355  chapters."  At 
the  end  of  Mark  we  read  :  "  Gospel  according  to  Mark  :  written 
and  corrected  likewise  from  the  carefully  prepared  ones  in  1506 
lines,  237  chapters."  At  the  end  of  Luke:  " Gospel  according 
to  Luke:  written  and  corrected  likewise  in  2677  lines,  342 
chapters."  At  the  end  of  John :  "  Gospel  according  to  John : 
written  and  corrected  likewise  from  the  same  copies  in  2210 
lines,  232  chapters." 

In  the  East  it  is  hard  to  get  the  scholars  to  accept  these  in- 
scriptions as  applying  to  the  holy  mountain  in  Jerusalem.  The 
name  holy  mountain  would,  of  course,  apply  also  to  Mount  Sinai, 
which  is  always  called  the  "mountain  trodden  upon  by  God." 
And  what  could  be  more  biblical,  or  sound  more  Davidic,  than 
going  up  to  the  holy  mountain,  even  Jerusalem,  Mount  Sion. 
But  now  for  centuries  Akte,  Mount  Athos,  has  been  the  one 
great  Hagion  Oros,  ayiov  opos,  Holy  Mountain  of  Greek,  Slavic, 
and  Georgian  Christendom,  and  it  is  hard  for  Eastern  theo- 
logians to  believe  that  anything  else  has  been  thus  named.  We 
do  not  know  how  far  back  this  inscription  reaches.  It  would 
be  possible  that  this  manuscript  itself  was  thus  written  and 
corrected  in  Jerusalem.  I  see  no  difficulty  in  the  supposition 
that  the  manuscripts  kept  in  the  holy  mountain  were  manu- 
scripts kept  somewhere  at  Jerusalem,  even  if  I  cannot  say 
precisely  where.  Those  lines  given  at  the  end  of  the  Gospels 
are  the  space  lines  I  spoke  of,  and  the  chapters  are  the  small 
chapters  called  the  Eusebian  sections.  It  must  be  conceded 
that  this  manuscript  belongs  to  the  younger  class  of  manuscripts. 
Its  text  is,  however,  much  better  than  that  of  the  general  run 
of  younger  books,  and  contains  many  old  readings. 


H. 

Our  next  manuscript  is  a  very  exceptionally  good  one,  and  it 
is  a  pity  that  there  are  only  eighty-six  and  three  half  leaves  of 


LARGE  LETTER   GREEK  MANUSCRIPTS  361 

it  in  oar  hands.  It  is  at  London,  and  belongs  to  the  British  and 
Foreign  Bible  Society.  It  is  extremely  fitting  that  this  great  and 
incomparably  useful  society  should  have  a  fine  manuscript  of  the 
Bible.  The  society  is  worthy  of  the  greatest  manuscripts.  But 
keeping  manuscripts  is  not  the  work  of  this  society,  and  this 
manuscript  is  not  in  the  proper  place  there.  I  hope  that  some 
day  the  society  will  ask  Sir  Edward  Maunde  Thompson  to  have 
the  manuscript  most  carefully  rearranged  according  to  the 
ancient  and  precious  text,  by  a  competent  scholar,  say  Frederic 
G.  Kenyon,  and  then  to  bind  it  in  the  bindery  of  the  British 
Museum,  and  then  to  keep  it  in  the  Museum,  perhaps  placing 
it  in  a  glass  case  and  writing  upon  it  that  it  is  the  property  of 
the  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society,  put  there  on  eternal 
deposit.  It  is  denoted  by  the  letter  H,  and  is  of  the  eighth 
century,  35-8x287  centimetres.  The  text  is  written  in  large 
uncial  letters,  and  is  accompanied  by  a  chain  or  combination 
commentary  in  small  uncial  letters.  It  is  the  oldest  manuscript 
with  a  chain.  The  chapter  division  is  the  same  as  the  singular 
one  in  the  Vatican  manuscript  B.  It  contains  fragments  from 
the  first  eleven  chapters  of  Luke.  The  text  is  extraordinarily 
good,  and  agrees  with  the  oldest  manuscripts.  There  is  a  second 
writing  on  top  of  this  good  ancient  text,  and  we  may  be  glad 
that  there  is,  since  we  should  certainly  otherwise  never  have 
seen  these  leaves.  They  would  have  been  thrown  away  centuries 
ago.  The  later  writing  is  a  lesson-book  of  the  Gospel,  probably 
of  the  thirteenth  century.  It  does  not  often  occur  that  biblical 
manuscripts  are  written  upon  leaves  that  have  been  used  before, 
and  still  more  rare  is  it  to  find  biblical  texts  upon  biblical  texts. 
Samuel  Prideaux  Tregelles  published  the  text  in  186 1.  I  think 
that  some  slight  additions  could  be  made  if  the  leaves  were 
entrusted  as  above  suggested  to  the  revivifying  care  of  the 
British  Museum. 

n  X 

The  manuscript  11  is  of  the  ninth  century,  and  is  in  the 
Imperial  Library  at  St.  Petersburg,  having  been  given  to  the 
Russian  emperor  by  Mr.  Parodi,  of  Smyrna,  in  the  year  1859. 
— The  next  manuscript  recalls  the  one  named  N,  for  it  is 
on  purple  parchment,  and  contains  Matthew  and  Mark.     Its 


362  THE  TEXT 

sign  is  2,  and  it  lies  in  the  strong  chest  of  the  archbishop  at 
Rossano,  at  the  southern  end  of  Italy.  It  is  of  the  sixth  century. 
The  writing  is,  as  in  N,  silver,  and  the  names  of  God  and  Jesus 
are  in  gold.  The  text  is  not  especially  good,  and  agrees  largely 
with  the  text  of  N.  The  charm  of  this  volume  lies  in  the  fact 
that  it  contains  a  series  of  pictures  illustrating  scenes  from  the 
Gospels :  the  raising  of  Lazarus,  the  driving  of  the  traders  out  of 
the  temple,  the  ten  virgins,  the  entry  into  Jerusalem,  the  foot- 
washing,  the  last  Supper,  the  Lord's  Supper  in  two  scenes,  Jesus 
before  Pilate  in  two  scenes,  the  healing  of  the  man  born  blind, 
the  cursing  of  the  fig-tree.  There  is  also  a  picture  of  the 
evangelist  Mark,  by  whom  a  figure  stands,  probably  Wisdom. 
The  late  Oskar  von  Gebhardt  and  Adolf  Harnack,  now  in  Berlin, 
discovered  this  manuscript  in  the  year  1878,  and  wished  to  make 
a  fine  edition  of  it,  but  were  forbidden  to  do  so  by  the  Chapter. 
They  published  a  short  description  of  it  in  1880,  and  Gebhardt 
published  the  text  of  the  two  Gospels  in  1883.  In  the  year  1898, 
Arthur  Haseloff  gave  a  photographic  edition  of  the  pictures,  and 
in  1907  Antonio  Munoz  an  edition  in  coloured  photography. 


^  *  Q  3. 

In  the  year  1885,  Pierre  Batiffol  went  from  Paris  to  Berat 
in  Albania,  and  found  another  purple  manuscript  of  the  sixth 
century,  <I>,  also  containing  Matthew  and  Mark  in  silver  writing. 
This  manuscript  contains  the  strange  long  addition  to  Matt. 
2o28.  Batiffol  published  the  text  in  1887.— In  the  year  1886  I 
found,  in  the  monastery  called  the  Laura  of  Athanasius,  on 
Mount  Athos,  a  manuscript  of  the  eighth  or  ninth  century,  con- 
taining a  part  of  Mark,  the  whole  of  Luke,  John,  Acts,  and  the 
Catholic  Epistles,  and  the  Pauline  Epistles  and  Hebrews  down 
nearly  to  the  end  of  the  eighth  chapter.  Its  sign  is  ^.  It  con- 
tains the  short  end  of  Mark.  In  the  Catholic  Epistles,  First  and 
Second  Peter  are  put  before  James,  showing  a  Western  influence 
apparently. — In  the  same  week  I  found  in  the  monastery  of 
Dionysius  on  Mount  Athos,  a  complete  manuscript  of  the  four 
Gospels  of  the  eighth  or  ninth  century.  Its  sign  is  O. — In 
the  same  week  I  found  in  the  monastery  of  St.  Andrew  on 
Mount  Athos,  a  manuscript  of  the  four  Gospels  of  the  ninth  or 


LARGE   LETTER   GREEK   MANUSCRIPTS  363 

tenth  century,  written  entirely  in  pages  or  columns  shaped  like 
a  cross  .     There  are  four  gaps  in  it.     Its  sign  is  2. — Under 

1  we  have  seven  fragments  at  Mount  Sinai,  found  and  published 
by  J.  Rendel  Harris.  They  are  from  the  fifth  to  the  ninth 
century.  That  is  enough  for  the  present  in  regard  to  the 
manuscripts  of  the  four  Gospels,  and  we  may  turn  to  the  other 
books,  beginning  with  Acts. 

Manuscripts  of  Acts, 

The  manuscripts  attached  to  the  letters  ^5ABCD  we  have 
already  spoken  of  above.  The  next  manuscript  of  Acts,  E,  is  at 
Oxford  in  the  Bodleian.  It  contains  almost  the  whole  of  Acts  in 
Greek  and  Latin.  It  is  of  the  end  of  the  sixth  century.  The 
lines  in  this  manuscript  are  sense-lines  and  are  very  short, 
containing  only  two  or  three  Greek  or  Latin  words.  Tt  was  written 
in  the  West,  and  it  may  have  been  written  in  Sardinia.  At  any 
rate  it  was  once  in  Sardinia,  for  a  later  hand  wrote  at  the  end  a 
ducal  decree.  If  all  signs  do  not  fail,  it  was  in  England,  and  was 
used  by  the  Venerable  Bede,  who  died  in  735.  In  an  essay  of 
his  bearing  on  Acts  he  gives  seventy  and  more  readings,  all  of 
which  are  in  this  manuscript,  and  often  only  in  this.  It  belonged 
to  Laud  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  and  Chancellor  of  the 
University  of  Oxford,  and  he  gave  it  to  the  University  with  many 
other  manuscripts  in  the  year  1636.  Thomas  Hearne  published 
it  in  the  year  17 15,  yet  not  very  exactly,  and  then  Hansell  in 
the  year  1864,  and  Tischendorf  in  1870. — The  fragment  of 
Acts  named  G  was  taken  by  Tischendorf  from  the  wooden  cover 
of  a  Syrian  manuscript;  it  is  of  the  seventh  century,  and  the 
text  is  not  bad.  It  is  in  the  Imperial  Library  at  St.  Petersburg. — 
The  Vatican  Library  owns  G^  which  is  of  the  ninth  century,  and 
consists  of  six  leaves.  Hymns  were  written  over  the  old  text 
in  the  thirteenth  century.  The  volume  was  once  in  the  monastery 
of  Grottaferrata.  Giuseppe  Cozza  published  five  of  the  leaves 
in  1877  ;  I  found  the  sixth  in  1886. 

The  manuscript  H  is  in  the  Este  Library  at  Modena.  It 
contains  the  Acts  in   uncial  writing  of  the  ninth  centur>^,  and 


364  THE  TEXT 

the  Epistles  in  minuscle  writing  of  the  tenth  century. — Like 
the  Gospel  fragments  marked  I,  there  are  three  fragments  of 
Acts  at  St.  Petersburg  also  marked  I.  They  are  of  the  fifth 
and  seventh  centuries. — A  manuscript  marked  by  the  letter  K, 
is  of  the  ninth  century,  and  is  in  the  library  of  the  Synod  at 
Moscow.  It  contains  the  Acts  with  a  chain,  and  the  Epistles 
of  Paul  with  the  notes  of  Johannes  Damascenus.  It  was 
formerly  in  the  monastery  of  Dionysius  on  Mount  Athos. — The 
next  manuscript,  L,  is  at  Rome  in  the  Angelica  monastery 
of  the  Augustinian  monks.  It  was  written  in  the  ninth  century, 
and  contains  a  large  part  of  Acts,  beginning  with  8^^,  the 
Catholic  Epistles,  and  the  Epistles  of  Paul,  closing  with  Heb. 
13^0. — The  manuscript  P  is  in  the  Imperial  Library  at  St.  Peters- 
burg, and  is  of  the  ninth  century.  It  contains,  with  many  gaps, 
the  Acts,  the  Catholic  and  Pauline  Epistles,  and  Revelation.  In 
the  Acts  and  in  First  Peter  the  text  is  not  so  very  good,  and 
is  much  like  that  in  the  later  uncials  such  as  H  and  L.  In  the 
rest  of  the  Epistles,  however,  and  in  the  Revelation  the  text  is 
very  good.  Sometimes  it  agrees  with  K,  the  Sinaiticus,  and  still 
more  frequently  it  accompanies  the  Alexandrinus  and  Ephraim, 
that  is  to  say,  A  and  C.  The  old  text  was  covered  in  the  year 
1 30 1  by  Euthalius'  commentary  to  Acts  and  to  the  Pauline 
Epistles.  The  volume  contains  some  fragment  of  Fourth 
Maccabees;  they  are  not  palimpsest.  Tischendorf  published 
this  manuscript  in  two  different  volumes  of  his  "Sacred 
Monuments"  in  1865  and  1869. — The  next  manuscript,  marked 
S,  I  found  in  1886  in  the  Laura  on  Mount  Athos.  It  is  of  the 
eighth  or  ninth  century,  and  contains  Acts,  the  Catholic  Epistles, 
and  fragments  of  the  Epistle  of  Paul. — A  Vatican  manuscript, 
which  receives  the  letter  3,  was  discovered  by  Pierre  Batiffol  in 
1887.  It  is  of  the  fifth  century,  and  is  palimpsest.  There  are 
fragments  in  it  of  Acts,  and  also  of  the  Catholic  and  Pauline 
Epistles.  It  was  until  the  end  of  the  seventeenth  century  in 
the  monastery  of  St.  Mary  of  Patire  near  Rossano  in  Calabria, 
and  passed  thence  into  the  monastery  of  St.  Basil,  where 
Montfaucon  discovered  them.  Cardinal  Mai  also  discovered 
them.  And  finally  Batiffol  came  upon  them  while  study- 
ing the  Patire  manuscripts  in  the  Vatican,  and  they  were 
made  known. 


LARGE  LETTER  GREEK  MANUSCRIPTS      ,        365 


Manuscripts  of  Paul. 

In  proceeding  to  the  manuscripts  of  the  Epistles  of  Paul  it 
must  be  remembered  that  we  have  already  said  various  things 
about  the  Codex  Claromontanus  at  Paris  while  speaking  of  its 
companion,  the  other  D,  the  Codex  Bezae  at  Cambridge.  This 
D  contains  the  Epistles  of  Paul  with  only  trifling  exceptions. 
The  text  is  very  good.  Tischendorf  distinguished  ten  correctors. 
One  of  the  objects  of  interest  in  this  volume  is  a  so-called 
stichometry.  I  mentioned  a  little  way  back,  in  speaking  of  the 
manuscript  A  and  of  the  manuscript  566,  certain  lines  given  in 
the  subscriptions  to  the  four  Gospels  in  those  manuscripts,  and  I 
said  that  they  were  space  lines.  This  stichometry  gives  a  list  of 
the  books  of  the  Old  and  the  New  Testaments  with  the  number 
of  these  space  lines  that  each  contains.  It  was  necessary  to  refer 
to  this  list  several  times  while  treating  of  the  canon,  because  it 
gives  with  the  New  Testament  books,  Barnabas,  the  Shepherd  of 
Hermas,  and  the  Revelation  of  Peter.  Whether  written  at  the 
same  time  as  the  rest  of  the  manuscript  or  not,  this  list  is 
certainly  very  old.  Bhze  used  this  manuscript  in  the  second 
edition  of  his  Greek  New  Testament  in  the  year  1582.  Once 
this  manuscript  met  with  a  misfortune  even  after  being  placed  in 
the  Royal  Library  at  Paris.  A  thief  named  Jean  Aymont  stole 
thirty-five  leaves  in  the  year  1707  and  sold  them  in  foreign  parts. 
But  happily  the  leaves  came  back.  A  Dutchman  named  Stosch 
gave  one  back  in  the  year  1720,  and  Count  Harley's  son  gave 
back  thirty-four  in  the  year  1729.  Tischendorf  published  this 
manuscript  in  the  year  1852. 

In  the  next  manuscript,  E,  we  have  a  rare  chance  to  see 
clearly  how  a  manuscript  was  copied  in  the  ninth  century, 
for  this  E  is  in  the  Greek  a  copy  of  the  Claromontanus  after 
it  had  been  corrected  by  several  hands.  Really  this  should 
not  have  a  letter;  it  should  be  attached  to  D.  The  way  in 
which  the  fact  of  the  copying  from  D  can  be  proved  is  very 
interesting.  For  example,  D  had  in  Rom.  4^^  SiKatwo-tv.  One 
corrector  put  the  accent  in  St/caicoo-ti/.  Another  corrector  aimed 
to  change  the  word  into  StKatocrwr^v,  and  he  put  vyv  for  that 
last  V  but  did  not  change  the  accent.  In  consequence  of  this 
we   find  in  E  StKaLwcnvrjv.      In  Rom.   15^^  D  had  7r\r]po(f)opia. 


366  THE  TEXT 

A  corrector  changed  this  to  TrXrjp^fxaTL.  The  scribe  of  E  ac- 
cepted the  change,  but  thought  well  to  keep  also  pia  from  the 
word  7rX-r]po(^opia,  and  therefore  we  find  in  E  the  touchingly 
beautiful  word  TrXrjpf.opiaripia.  In  First  Corinthians  the  Claro- 
montanus  had  at  first  in  15^  /xcra  ravra  rot?  cvScKa.  A  corrector 
changed  it  to  ctra  tois  ScoScKa.  The  scribe  of  E  shook  the  two 
up  in  a  bag  and  wrote  /xera  rauttra  rots  SwevScKa.  Heb.  10^^ 
had  at  first  in  the  Claromontanus  oi't8t^oyu,cj/oi.  A  corrector  put 
an  obelus  on  the  first  and  last  letters  to  show  that  the  word  was 
to  be  considered  as  expunged,  and  then  he  wrote  above  it 
OeaTpt^ofievoL.  The  scribe  of  E  did  really  leave  out  the  two 
obelised  letters  and  then  wrote  vtSt^o/xevo^earpi^o/xcvoi.  One 
thing  this  E  can  do.     It  can  tell  us  what  D  had  in  Rom.  i^'"^. 


F  G. 

The  next  manuscript  is  at  Cambridge,  England,  in  Trinity 
College.  Its  name  is  Codex  Augiensis,  from  the  monastery 
Augia  Maior  or  Dives,  which  means  Reichenau,  a  rich  meadow ; 
this  monastery  was  on  an  island  in  Lake  Constance  near 
Constance.  It  receives  the  letter  F.  It  is  of  the  end  of  the 
ninth  century,  and  contains  the  Epistles  of  Paul,  without  Hebrews 
(except  in  Latin),  and  with  a  few  gaps.  With  it  we  reach  another 
member  of  a  group  of  Greek-Latin  manuscripts  of  which  we 
have  already  seen  three  representatives  in  the  Codex  Bezae, 
the  Claromontanus,  and  its  St.  Petersburg  son.  This  is  a 
beautiful  book.  The  scribe  that  wrote  it  liked  to  write.  In 
the  Greek  a  point  stands  between  every  two  words  so  that  the 
Latin  monk  may,  at  least,  know  where  each  word  begins  and 
ends.  That  reminds  one  of  old  inscriptions.  The  Greek  text 
is  good.  Frederic  Henry  Ambrose  Scrivener  published  it  in 
the  year  1859.  I  shall  have  to  return  to  it  in  a  moment  in 
connection  with  the  following  manuscript. 

A  former  Leipzig  professor.  Christian  Friedrich  Borner,  once 
possessed  a  manuscript,  and  it  is  therefore  named  the  Codex 
Bornerianus.  From  Borner  it  passed  at  his  death  to  the  Royal 
Library  at  Dresden.  The  letter  for  it  is  G.  Borner  lent  it  to 
Bentley,  who  kept  it  five  years  and  longed  to  buy  it,  and  had  a 
copy  made  of  it  which  is  in  Trinity  College  at  Cambridge.     Also 


LARGE  LETTER  GREEK  MANUSCRIPTS  367 

of  the  ninth  century,  like  F,  it  also  contains  the  Epistles  of  Paul 
but  not  Hebrews.  Of  the  six  gaps  in  it,  four  are  also  found  in  F, 
Aganon,  whose  name  we  have  already  met,  and  Goddiskalkon, 
which  is  Gottschalk,  are  mentioned  in  the  margin,  and  at  one 
point  there  are  some  Irish  verses.  Christian  Friedrich  Matthai 
published  it  in  1791,  and  did  his  work  very  well.  Now  the 
Augiensis  and  the  Bornerianus  are  surely  related  to  each  other, 
closely  related.  Some  think  they  are  brothers,  and  some  think 
that  one  of  them  is  the  father  of  the  other.  In  spite  of  minor 
differences  they  are  much  like  each  other.  Among  other  agree- 
ments they  both  have  the  curious  word  aori^oju-cvos,  which  is  no 
Greek  word  at  all,  but  merely  the  result  of  misreading  A  as  A, 
—  O  as  C,— and  T  as  T,  the  proper  word  being  Aoyi^o/xei'os. 
Should  the  Greek  text  of  each  of  them  not  have  been  drawn 
from  a  common  original,  then  the  Greek  in  F  would  appear  to 
have  been  taken  from  G.  The  esthetic  difficulty  is  the  chief  one 
here.  For  the  Bornerianus  is,  as  we  said  above  of  its  mate  A 
in  St.  Gallen,  a  rough  coarse  uneducated-looking  book,  whereas 
the  Augiensis  looks  very  dainty  and  well-bred.  One  shrinks 
from  the  thought  that  so  ill-looking  a  father  should  have  such 
a  delicate  son.  Yet  such  things  do  occur,  even  in  flesh  and 
blood. 

H. 

Speaking  of  breeding,  we  pass  at  once  to  a  very  high  bred 
book  indeed,  yet  one  which  has  experienced  a  serious  fall  m 
fortune,  and  has  been  sent  wandering  around  the  world  in  the 
bindings  of  other  genealogically  far  less  favoured  volumes.  It 
bears  the  letter  H,  and  was  written  in  the  sixth  century  in  large 
well-shaped  letters  which  someone  maltreated  when  they  grew 
old  and  pale  by  tracing  them  anew  in  a  very  ugly  and  careless 
way.  At  present  forty-one  leaves  of  it  are  known,  but  new 
leaves  may  any  day  turn  up  in  old  bindings.  The  greater  part  of 
the  leaves,  twenty-two,  are  in  the  National  Library  at  Paris.  The 
Laura  of  St.  Athanasius  on  Mount  Athos  has  eight  leaves. 
Russia  has  nine  leaves,  three  of  which  are  in  two  libraries  at 
Moscow,  three  at  St.  Petersburg,  and  three  at  Kiev.  And,  lastly, 
there  are  two  at  Turin.  That  is  in  part  the  result  of  the  work  of 
Makarius,  who  in  the  year  12 18,  in  the  Laura  on  Mount  Athos, 


368  THE   TEXT 

used  some  of  these  leaves  for  bookbinding.  They  contain 
fragments  from  a  number  of  the  Epistles  of  Paul,  including 
Hebrews.  These  leaves  are,  I  think,  the  oldest,  aside  from  that 
subscription  to  Esther  in  the  Codex  Sinaiticus,  that  carry  us  back 
to  the  great  library  of  Pamphilus  at  Csesarea  of  which  we  have 
spoken  more  than  once.  Indeed,  if  Tischendorf  was  right  in 
dating  that  subscription  as  of  the  seventh  century,  and  if  we  are 
right  in  thinking  that  this  manuscript  is  of  the  sixth  century,  it 
was  written  before  that  collation  was  made.  Henri  Omont 
published  the  forty-one  leaves.  But  strange  as  it  may  seem, 
there  is  something  more  to  tell.  Omont  published  one  more 
page  than  the  eighty-two  pages,  and  J.  Armitage  Robinson  and 
H.  S.  Cronin  published  that  one  more  and  fifteen  more  in 
addition,  and  yet  no  more  leaves  had  been  found.  The  secret 
was  that  these  sixteen  pages  had  printed  themselves  off  on 
various  of  the  forty-one  leaves,  and  were  now  with  great  pains 
reproduced  as  though  from  the  thin  air  by  those  scholars. 


I  M  N  O  Q  R  T. 

There  is  one  fragment  in  two  leaves  at  St.  Petersburg  which  is 
lettered  I  and  is  of  the  fifth  century,  and  contains  a  little  of  First 
Corinthians  and  a  little  of  Titus. — In  the  British  Museum  there 
are  two  leaves,  and  in  the  City  Library  at  Hamburg  there  are  two 
leaves  written  entirely  in  red.  They  are  M.  They  are  of  the  ninth 
century,  and  give  a  part  of  First  and  Second  Corinthians  and  of 
Hebrews.  Tischendorf  published  the  four  leaves  in  1855. — The 
letter  N  attaches  to  a  fragment  of  the  ninth  century  at  St.  Peters- 
burg with  a  few  verses  from  Galatians  and  Hebrews. — The  same 
Imperial  Library  owns  O,  with  two  leaves  of  the  sixth  century  from 
Second  Corinthians,  and  Q  with  five  papyrus  fragments  of  the 
fifth  century  with  scattered  bits  from  First  Corinthians. — The 
library  at  Grottaferrata  has  a  leaf  from  the  close  of  the  seventh 
century  with  ten  verses  from  Second  Corinthians.  It  is  lettered 
R. — The  letter  T^  stands  for  two  little  fragments  in  the  Louvre 
at  Paris,  from  the  fourth  to  the  sixth  century,  with  a  few  words 
from  First  Timothy. — Under  the  letter  T''  are  placed  two  leaves 
in  the  National  Library  at  Paris  of  the  ninth  or  tenth  century, 
with   seven   verses   of  First   Corinthians. — Seven   fragments   of 


LARGE  LETTER   GREEK   MANUSCRIPTS  369 

papyrus  of  the  fifth  century  from  First  Corinthians  are  at  Sinai, 
and  bear  in  our  lists  the  letter  l^*. 

For  the  Revelation  we  need  only  refer  to  a  single  manuscript 
in  the  Vatican  Library  which  has  as  its  sign  the  letter  B,  and  is  of 
the  tenth  century.  This  manuscript  offers  an  eminent  example 
of  the  fact  emphasised  in  treating  of  the  canon,  namely  that  the 
Revelation  is,  contrary  to  the  custom  with  other  books  of  the 
Bible,  often  found  in  non-biblical  manuscripts.  This  is  not  a 
biblical  manuscript.  We  find  in  it  writings  of  Basil  the  Great, 
of  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  and  of  other  Church  writers.  And  the 
Revelation  stands  among  these  books.  Tischendorf  published 
the  text  in  1869. 

We  have  now  seen  the  uncial  manuscripts  of  the  New 
Testament  with  a  hasty  glance  as  if  we  had  passed  by  them  in 
an  express  train.  They  contain  among  their  number  the  most 
important  witnesses  to  the  text  of  the  New  Testament,  and  the 
presumption  of  age  lies  in  their  favour.  Yet  we  should  not 
forget  that  their  quantity  is  by  no  means  so  great  as  the  long 
description  of  them  and  the  many  letters  used  as  signs  might 
seem  to  indicate.  Many  of  them  are  mere  trifles.  Each  has, 
that  must  be  insisted  upon,  its  place  and  value.  A  bit  of  parch- 
ment with  only  a  half  a  dozen  words  on  it  and  no  important  readmg 
among  them  may  nevertheless  offer  some  day  a  key  to  open  the 
way  to  a  connection  between  widely  scattered  texts,  or  to  tell  us 
the  secret  as  to  some  date  or  place.  But  a  large  part  of  them 
only  speak  as  direct  authority  for  a  very  few  interesting  read- 
ings. We  can  almost  count  on  our  fingers  those  that  range 
widely  through  the  books  outside  of  the  four  Gospels.  We  there- 
fore need  to  turn  our  attention  to  other  manuscripts,  to  the 
small  letter  or  minuscle  manuscripts,  and  see  whether  in  spite  of 
their  youth  they  may  not  be  of  service.  The  earliest  of  these 
overlap  the  large  letter  manuscripts. 


24 


370 


IV. 

SMALL  LETTER  GREEK  MANUSCRIPTS. 

The  ninth  century  probably  saw  the  first  books  written  in 
this  small  letter.  The  large  letters  were  too  stiff,  and  in  their 
several,  individual  isolation  could  not  be  written  fast  enough  to 
satisfy  the  demands  of  the  times  which  were  growing  ever  more 
hasty.  A  passing  observer  might  suppose  that  the  cursive 
writing  would  have  answered  all  purposes  of  quickness.  That 
is  true.  The  ancients  wrote  this  running  hand  without  any 
doubt  as  swiftly  as  we  to-day  write  our  letters  and  our  scrawled 
notes.  And  it  may  well  sometimes  have  happened  that  someone 
wrote  a  little  of  the  New  Testament  text  in  cursive  writing.  But 
that,  so  far  as  we  can  see,  never  became  a  rule.  We  do  not 
print  our  Bibles  with  our  ugliest  types.  Not  only  the  Bibles,  and 
in  particular  the  New  Testaments  or  New  Testament  books,  but 
also  polite  and  learned  literature  in  general,  wished  for  a  change. 
The  large  letters  had  become  unwieldy.  Either  they  were  black, 
thick,  and  big,  and  devoured  parchment,  ink,  and  time,  or  they 
were  small  and  delicate,  and  consumed  time  both  for  the  writer 
and  for  the  reader.  The  problem  was  to  produce  a  script  that 
could  be  written  with  tolerable  speed  and  ease,  connecting  many 
of  the  letters  without  raising  the  pen.  And  this  script  must  be 
so  legible  and  so  beautiful  that  it  could  be  applied  to  works  of 
literature  and  to  sacred  books  without  detracting  from  the  agree- 
^^able  impression  desirable  in  the  former  or  from  the  honourable 
treatment  due  to  the  latter.  iThis  problem  was  happily  solved  in 
the  small  letter  writing,  the  jaiifiJJSC»ie.  The  word  "  cursive  "  is 
often  applied  to  this  hand,  but  I  think  it  better  to  restrict  that 
designation  to  the  running  hand  to  which  it  properly  belongs. 
The  cursive  is  not  for  these  times  a  literary  hand.  The  words 
uncial  and  minuscle,  or  large  letter  and  small  letter,  are  in  a 
manner  deceptive  for  a  stranger  who  should  take  the  terms  as 
expressing  of  necessity  a  larger  and  smaller  number  of  millimetres 
in  the  height  and  breadth  of  the  letter  used.     Many  of  the  large 


SMALL  LETTER  GREEK  MANUSCRIPTS  37 1 

or  uncial  letters  are  much  smaller  than  a  great  deal  of  the  small 
or  minuscle  writing.  It  is,  after  all,  an  arbitrary  distinction,  and 
the  names  give  no  trouble  as  soon  as  it  is  understood  to  what 
script  they  apply. 

The  small  letter  manuscripts  are  likely  some  day  to  give  us 
much  information  in  reference  to  the  history  of  the  text.  They 
are  numerous,  and  range  widely  through  the  lands  and  the 
centuries.  Their  lines  are  likely  to  close  quickly  if  we  succeed 
in  gaining  a  few  certain  connections  between  time  and  place  and 
handwriting  and  text  form.  In  general  it  is  to  be  emphasised 
that  the  testimony  for  the  New  Testament  books  which  follow 
the  Gospels  is  particularly  in  need  of  the  help  of  the  small  letter 
manuscripts.  These  manuscripts  are  denoted  by  Arabic  numbers. 
As  there  are  hundreds  of  them  I  shall  not  pretend  to  go  through 
the  list  book  by  book.  It  will  be  enough  to  describe  characteristic 
points,  or  to  call  attention  to  peculiarities  in  reference  to  the 
manuscripts  or  to  their  history. 

The  very  first  manuscript,  i,  of  the  tenth  century,  contains  all 
the  books  of  the  New  Testament  except  the  Revelation.  It  is  in 
the  University  Library  at  Basel.  Historically  it  is  interesting  to 
know  that  this  book  was  used  in  the  correction  of  the  proofs  of 
Erasmus'  New  Testament.  Its  text  in  the  Gospels  is  good. 
That  New  Testament  would  have  been  much  better  in  its  Gospel 
text  if  it  had  followed  this  copy. — Unfortunately,  2,  of  the  twelfth 
century,  now  in  the  same  library,  was  handed  over  to  the  printers 
by  Erasmus,  and  2  has  a  bad  text.  It  only  contains  the  Gospels. — 
Number  5,  at  Paris,  is  a  good  manuscript.  It  is  of  the  fourteenth 
century,  and  only  lacks  the  Revelation.  It  has  placed  Colossians 
before  Philippians,  just  as  the  Codex  Claromontanus  did.  This 
volume  was  formerly  in  Calabria. 


13.  69.   124.  346. 

The  manuscript  13,  also  in  the  National  Library  at  Paris, 
may  serve  as  an  introduction  to  a  series  of  manuscripts.  Pos- 
sibly all  of  this  series  came  from  Southern  Italy,  from  Calabria, 
or  were  copied  from  Calabrian  manuscripts.  The  subscriptions 
say  that  Matthew  was  originally  written  in  Hebrew  and  Mark 
in  Roman  or  Latin  pco/^iato-ri,    but   Luke   in   Greek.     The  pro- 


372  THE  TEXT 

bably  spurious  words  in  Matt.  162- ^  are  omitted,  and  so  are 
in  Luke  22,  vv.^^  and  ^*.  Then,  too,  the  interpolation  about 
the  adulteress  is  not  at  John  7^^  to  S^^,  but  is  placed  directly 
after  Luke  21^^.  This  volume  was  written  in  Calabria  or  Sicily 
in  the  thirteenth  century.  W.  H.  Ferrar,  of  Dublin,  observed 
that  this  manuscript  was  much  like  those  numbered  69,  124, 
and  346,  and  collated  them  to  prove  it.  Thomas  Kingsmill 
Abbott  completed  the  valuable  work  in  1877.  Since  that  time 
several  more  copies  have  been  found  to  belong  to  the  same 
group. — Number  14,  of  the  twelfth  century,  and  at  Paris,  con- 
tains the  Gospels,  and  is  peculiar,  and  shows  traces  of  a  most 
excellent  and  ancient  tradition  in  that  after  Mark  16^  the  words 
are  written  in  gold :  "  In  some  of  the  copies,  up  to  this  point 
the  evangelist  is  finished.  But  in  many  this  also  is  added"; 
and  then  the  usual  false  ending  vv.^-so  follows.  The  story  of  the 
adulteress  is  omitted,  properly. 

Another  Parisian  manuscript,  it  is  of  the  fourteenth  century, 
was  very  ingeniously  gotten  up.  The  number  is  16.  The 
Hebrew  Bible  printed  in  colours,  the  rainbow  Bible,  might  be 
compared  to  this  volume.  But  in  this  volume,  which  con- 
tains the  Gospels  in  Greek  and  Latin,  the  writing  itself  is  of 
the  given  colour,  not  the  parchment,  and  that  is  much  better. 
The  general  current  of  the  Gospel  narrative  is  in  vermilion. 
The  words  of  Jesus,  the  genealogy  of  Jesus,  and  the  words  of 
the  angel  are  in  crimson.  The  words  taken  from  the  Old 
Testament,  the  words  of  the  disciples  and  of  Zacharias,  Elisabeth, 
Mary,  Simeon,  and  John  the  Baptist,  are  in  blue.  And,  finally, 
the  words  of  the  Pharisees,  of  the  people  from  the  multitude, 
of  Judas  Iscariot,  of  the  centurion,  of  the  devil,  and  of  the 
scribes,  are  in  black.  The  words  of  the  shepherds  are  also 
black;  but  I  am  inclined  to  think  that  that  was  an  oversight. 
This  manuscript  contains  beautiful  pictures.  In  one  way  it  has 
an  interest  for  a  painter  or  an  art  critic  who  cares  to  go  into  the 
details  and  learn  how  the  painters  of  that  day  and  place  worked, 
for  there  are  some  pictures  that  are  only  begun,  only  have  a 
few  lines  laid  on.  I  have  no  doubt  that  it  was  at  least  in 
part  the  work  of  an  Armenian ;  there  are  Armenian  as  well 
as  Greek  numbers  for  the  quires,  and  the  quires  are  of  five, 
not  of  four,  double  leaves. 


SMALL   LETTER  GREEK  MANUSCRIPTS  373 


Hermonymos. 

Number  17  introduces  us  again  to  a  series  of  manuscripts. 
But  these  manuscripts  are  not  bound  together  by  the  text  used, 
as  was  the  case  in  the  group  attaching  to  manuscript  13,  for 
the  centre  is  the  scribe  who  wrote  them.  George  Hermony- 
mos, born  in  Sparta,  came  to  Paris  in  1472,  and  taught  Greek 
and  copied  Greek  manuscripts,  quite  a  number  in  Rome 
too.  I  have  seen  at  least  a  dozen  manuscripts  written  by  him. 
His  handwriting  was  not  especially  beautiful,  but  it  was  char- 
acteristic. I  think  I  never  saw,  certainly  I  have  very  rarely 
seen,  other  manuscripts,  manuscripts  written  by  other  scribes, 
that  had  a  handwriting  like  his.  It  is  very  angular. — Num- 
ber 33,  also  at  Paris,  has  all  the  books  except  the  Revelation, 
and  has  a  very  exceptionally  good  text.  It  is  of  the  ninth  or 
tenth  century. — In  number  38  we  come  in  contact  with  high 
personages.  This  manuscript  has  the  New  Testament  save 
Revelation,  and  was  written  at  the  command  of  the  Emperor 
Michael  Palaeologus,  who  presented  it  in  the  year  1269  or 
1270  to  Louis  IX.  of  France. — The  manuscript  39  takes  our 
thoughts  back  to  H  of  the  Epistles  of  Paul,  the  leaves 
that  are  scattered  all  over.  There  we  see  Makarius,  a  monk,  in 
the  year  1218  in  the  Laura  of  St.  Athanasius  on  Mount  Athos. 
Now  this  manuscript  was  written  apparently  at  Constantinople, 
and  in  the  patriarchal  residence  there  under  the  patriarch  Sergius 
the  Second,  and  in  the  year  12 18  Makarius  carried  it  to  the 
Laura  on  Mount  Athos. 

Serbopulos. 

Number  47  is  a  fat  little  book  in  the  Bodleian  at  Oxford. 
It  was  written  by  John  Serbopulos  in  England  in  the  fifteenth 
century.  He  copied  it  out  of  number  54.  That  54  has  the  note 
after  John  8^  "  In  some  copies  thus  "  and  adds  S^-n.  Serbopulos 
copied  the  words  "  in  some  copies  thus  "  into  the  text  as  if  it  were 
a  part  of  the  Gospel. — The  manuscript  54  was  written  in  the  year 
1338  by  a  monk  Theodosius  "with  three  fingers."  When  I  first 
saw  this  expression  I  supposed  it  to  refer  to  a  mutilated  hand. 
Now  I  do  not  think  so.     It  occurs  now  and  then  in  manuscripts, 


374  THE  TEXT 

and  alludes,  I  take  it,  to  the  fact  that  the  pen  is  held  between 
the  thumb  and  the  forefinger  and  the  middle  finger.  Serbopulos' 
writing  may  be  seen  on  the  margin  of  two  leaves,  where  he  adds 
some  words  left  out  by  Theodosius.  At  least  three  other 
manuscripts  besides  47  are  in  some  way  related  to  this  one. — 
One  of  them  is  number  56,  which  Serbopulos  also  wrote.  In 
this  manuscript  he  copied  off  some  verses  that  Theodosius  had 
written  in  number  54,  but  put  his  own  name  Johannes  in.  The 
consequence  was  that  it  was  supposed  to  be  the  Apostle  John 
that  was  meant. 

61. 

The  manuscript  numbered  61  is  at  Dublin  in  Trinity  Col- 
lege, and  has  a  history.  It  is  doubtless  related  to  Serbopulos' 
group  just  mentioned.  It  was  probably  written  in  England  in 
the  sixteenth  century,  and  we  are  pretty  sure  that  the  text  of 
the  Gospels  was  drawn  from  number  56.  Erasmus,  of  course, 
did  not  have  First  John  5^-^,  the  three  heavenly  witnesses, 
in  his  New  Testament,  for  no  one  dreamed  of  putting  those 
words  into  the  Greek  text  save  the  Alcala  editors  who  went 
before  Erasmus.  In  discussing  the  matter  with  a  bigoted 
opponent,  Erasmus  was  so  thoughtless  as  to  write  that  he  would 
put  the  words  in  if  they  could  be  found  in  a  Greek  manuscript. 
There  is  every  reason  to  believe  that  this  manuscript  was 
written,  with  the  words  added,  to  compel  Erasmus  to  add  them, 
as  he  then  did,  "  for  his  oath's  sake,"  like  Herod,  to  his  text.  It 
was  a  great  pity  that  Erasmus  did  it.  It  has  taken  centuries  to 
get  the  words  out  again.  The  paper  on  which  this  volume  is 
written  is  very  thick  and  is  heavily  glazed.  That  does  not  show 
in  general,  because  it  is  so  white.  The  page,  however,  upon 
which  that  spurious  text  is  found  has  been  "  pawed  "  to  such  an 
extent  by  curious  visitors,  whose  acquaintance  with  soap  and  its 
use  appears  to  have  been  a  distant  one,  that  the  paper  has 
been  well  browned,  and  therefore  the  glazing  is  distinctly  seen. 
This  deceived  a  scholar  so  thoroughly  that  he  printed  the 
statement  that  this  page  had  been  glazed. — Number  69  is 
like  the  manuscript  E  in  one  thing,  it  is  in  the  wrong  place. 
It  was  written  in  the  fifteenth  century,  and  contains  the  whole 
New  Testament.     It  should  properly  be  in  a  great  library  at 


SMALL  LETTER   GREEK  MANUSCRIPTS  3/5 

Oxford  or  Cambridge,  or  in  the  British  Museum.  Instead  of 
that  it  is  up  at  the  top  of  the  Town  Hall  in  Leicester  in  a 
sheet-iron  box,  if  I  remember  aright,  along  with  all  kinds  of 
town  papers.  I  hope  that  the  town  council  will  some  day  give 
it  to  the  British  Museum. 


Theodore  Hagiopetritis. 

Another  group  attaching  to  a  scribe  must  now  be  mentioned, 
but  it  is  an  older  group  than  those  of  George  Hermonymos  and 
John  Serbopulos,  and  it  is  not  a  Western  but  an  Eastern  group. 
It  begins  with  number  74,  one  of  Archbishop  Wake's  manuscripts 
in  Christ  Church,  Oxford.  This  was  doubtless  written  about 
the  end  of  the  thirteenth  century.  The  scribe  was  Theodore 
of  Agiopetros,  a  village  in  Arcadia.  A  bishop  Apollonados 
Theosteriktos  made  a  present  of  it  to  "the  monastery  of  St. 
Gregory  called  tcov  Tracrxav'wv,  lying  on  the  mountain  of  the  great 
field."  It  was  later  in  the  monastery  Pantokrator  on  Mount 
Athos,  and  was  brought  from  there  to  England  in  the  year  1727. 
Theodore  Hagiopetritis  wrote  also  number  234  in  the  year  1278, 
number  856  in  the  year  1280,  number  484  in  the  year  1292, 
number  483  in  the  year  1295,  and  number  412  in  the  year  1301. 
He  also  wrote  in  1295  a  synararion  now  at  Moscow.  Number 
90  is  a  late  copy  of  a  manuscript  that  he  wrote  in  1293. 


Confused  Genealogies. 

Number  80  belongs  to  Mr.  Lesoeuf  at  Paris.  It  gives  an 
example  of  a  curious  mistake  in  copying  which  does  not  often 
occur.  The  genealogy  in  Luke  323-38  presents  a  very  strange 
complexion.  Upon  examination  it  is  clear  that  this  manuscript 
was  copied  from  one  that  had  twenty-three  lines  on  a  page,  and, 
further,  that  in  that  manuscript  the  genealogy  was  written  in 
three  columns  with  the  names  arranged  in  the  order  of  the 
columns,  not  in  the  order  of  the  lines.  Then  the  scribe  of  80 
copied  the  genealogy  off  in  the  order  of  the  lines,  causing  dire 
confusion,  and  making  everybody  the  son  of  some  wrong  man : 
Tov  ItDpdfx'  Tov  Kaivdv  tov  Iwcrrj'  tov  icpwix'  tov  ei/ais.      One  would 


376  THE  TEXT 

have  thought  that  the  scribe  would  have  noticed  the  false  family 
combinations.  He  must  have  copied  very  mechanically  not  to  see 
the  impossibility  of  the  relationship  in  many  cases. — Let  us,  how- 
ever, pass  at  once  to  number  109.  It  is  of  the  year  1326,  and  is  in 
the  British  Museum.  The  manuscript  from  which  it  was  copied 
had  the  genealogy  in  Luke  in  two  columns  of  twenty-eight  lines 
each  and  following  the  columns.  The  scribe  of  109  copied  it 
then,  following  the  lines.  The  conditions  of  things  is  much 
worse  than  in  80,  and  would  appear  to  be  blasphemous,  were  it 
not  clearly  an  error  of  mere  stupidity.  It  so  happened  in  that 
original — for  we  can  reproduce  it  with  mathematical  exactness 
from  these  tangled  names — that  the  names,  which  of  course  end, 
conclude,  rise  to  the  apex  in  God,  did  not  fill  the  last  column. 
In  consequence  the  name  of  God  came  to  stand  within  the  list 
instead  of  at  the  close  of  it.  And  God  is  actually  said  to  have 
been  the  son  of  Aram,  and  the  source  of  all  things  is  not  God 
but  Phares.  It  is  hard  enough  to  imagine  how  a  monk  could 
have  written,  without  observing  it,  a  wrong  father  for  Jesse  or 
David  or  Solomon.  But  that  he  should  calmly  put  God  as  the 
son  of  Aram,  passes  all  fancy. — The  next  book,  no,  does  not 
belong  here  at  all.  It  is  of  the  sixteenth  century,  and  is  called 
the  Codex  Ravianus.  It  is  in  the  Royal  Library  at  Berlin. 
Instead,  however,  of  being  a  copy  of  some  old  manuscript,  it  is 
a  copy  of  the  New  Testament  as  it  stands  in  the  printed 
Complutensian  polyglott,  and  has  also  a  few  readings  from 
Erasmus  and  Stephens. 


The  Story  of  the  Adulteress. 

Number  129  was  written  in  the  twelfth  century  by  Eustathius. 
The  story  of  the  adulteress  was  not  in  the  Gospel  of  John  in 
the  example  from  which  the  text  was  copied.  At  the  close 
of  the  Gospel,  however,  on  the  last  leaf  of  the  manuscript, 
Eustathius  wrote :  We  have  written  the  chapter  about  the 
adulteress  found  in  many  copies.  And  then  he  adds  John 
8^-11. — Number  145  has  the  paragraph  about  the  adulteress  in 
the  text,  but  notes  thereby :  This  chapter  is  lacking  in  many 
copies. — The  manuscript  157  is  a  very  good  one.  It  is  of  the 
twelfth  century,  and  is  in  the  Vatican  Library.     It  was  written  for 


SMALL  LETTER  GREEK  MANUSCRIPTS  377 

John  the  Second,  Porphyrogenitus,  who  ruled  11 18  to  11 48. — 
In  237,  a  manuscript  of  the  tenth  century  at  Moscow  in  the 
library  of  the  Synod,  the  story  of  the  adulteress  is  at  the  end  of 
the  Gospel  of  John  as  a  separate  affair,  and  marked  as  the  lesson 
"for  one  repenting.  Out  of  the  Gospel  according  to  John." 
And  at  the  end  of  the  lesson  is  the  remark  :  "  This  Gospel  [that 
means :  this  lesson]  is  not  found  in  the  more  accurate  of  the 
copies."  The  way  in  which  the  passage  is  given  shows  that  the 
scribe  got  it  out  of  a  manuscript  of  a  book  of  the  lessons  from 
the  Gospels,  and  that  it  stood  among  the  so-called  "various" 
Gospels  at  the  end  of  that  book,  not  in  the  regular  series  of 
lessons. — Not  very  different  from  that,  we  find  in  number  259 
at  Moscow,  also  in  the  library  of  the  Synod,  the  passage  about 
the  adulteress  after  the  close  of  the  Gospel,  with  the  sentence : 
"There  is  found  in  some  copies  also  this  chapter  (some  such 
chapter)  attached  to  the  Gospel  according  to  John." 

Number  288  is  one  of  the  books  that  were  cut  into  several  parts, 
probably  in  order  to  sell  them  better.  Matthew  is  in  the  Bodleian 
at  Oxford,  Luke  in  the  National  Library  at  Paris,  and  John  in  the 
library  of  the  Institute  at  Paris.  Where  Mark  is,  if  it  still  exists, 
I  do  not  know.  It  is  on  the  paper  quires  13  to  19,  marked  in 
Greek  ly  to  lO'.  George  Hermonymos  wrote  these  four  Gospels 
in  his  angular  hand. — In  number  296  we  have  a  specimen  of  the 
writing  of  Angelo  Vergece  of  the  sixteenth  century.  It  is  in  the 
National  Library  at  Paris.  The  types  for  Greek  in  the  royal 
printing-office  at  Paris,  which  was  also  used  by  Robert  Estienne, 
Stephens,  are  said  to  have  been  cut  after  the  writing  of  this 
skilful  and  artistic  scribe.  At  the  end  Vergece  wrote  an  Amen, 
d/x>?V,  very  much  curled  up  and  twisted  like  a  monogram ;  and  a 
scholar  who  described  this  manuscript  managed  to  make  the 
year  1428  out  of  the  word.  That  was  very  ingenious,  but 
Vergece  must  have  been  born  long  after  that  date. 

The  manuscript  346  of  the  twelfth  century  in  the  Ambrosiana 
at  Milan  belongs  to  the  group  mentioned  under  number  13.  It 
was  probably  written  in  Calabria.  This  volume  presents  in 
Matt,  i^*^,  a  rare  reading,  and  one  which  would  be  of  much 
moment  for  the  development  of  Christianity,  if  Christianity 
developed  upon  the  lines  of  scientific  research  instead  of  upon 
the  lines  of  weak  tradition.  This  is  the  reading  also  found  in 
some    Old-Latin    and    Old-Syrian    manuscripts:    "Joseph,    to 


3/8  THE  TEXT 

whom  the  Virgin  Mary  was  betrothed,  begat  Jesus  called  the 
Christ." 

The  manuscript  365,  the  number  of  the  days  of  the  year, 
is  at  Florence  in  the  Laurentiana.  An  amusing  thing  happened 
in  connection  with  it.  It  had  been  placed  in  the  list  of  the 
manuscripts  by  Scholz.  Dean  Burgon  while  at  Florence  tried 
to  find  it.  The  librarian  assured  him  that  no  such  manuscript 
ever  had  existed  there,  and  its  appearance  in  the  list  was  supposed 
to  be  a  specimen  of  the  most  extraordinary  carelessness  on  the 
part  of  Scholz,  who  had  even  stated  that  he  had  collated  select 
passages  in  this  non-existent  volume.  I  had  never  observed 
such  work  on  Scholz'  part,  and  was  therefore  carious  to  learn 
how  the  case  might  stand.  On  going  to  the  Laurentiana,  of 
course  I  examined  first  of  all  the  catalogues  which  were  on  a 
shelf  at  the  service  of  all  visitors.  The  great  printed  catalogue 
was  made  by  Angelo  Maria  Bandini,  who  died  in  1800.  At 
the  end  of  the  third  volume  I  found  on  the  fly-leaves  the 
description  of  this,  and  I  think  of  a  few  other  manuscripts, 
written  there  by  Bandini  himself.  I  said  nothing  about  it.  I 
simply  ordered  the  book  among  others,  and  it  was  brought  to 
me  by  the  attendant  at  once  without  remark.  .Scholz  had  not 
been  so  careless  after  all,  but  only  a  little  more  accurate  than 
had  been  supposed. — Number  418,  a  manuscript  of  the  fifteenth 
century  at  Venice  in  the  Marciana,  is  of  interest  for  the  history 
of  the  Lord's  Prayer.  It  is  well  known  that  the  doxology 
in  that  prayer  is  spurious.  This  volume  gives  the  doxology 
in  the  following  form:  "And  the  glory  of  the  Father  and  of 
the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit  unto  the  ages."  It  is  probably 
the  liturgical  form  to  which  the  scribe  who  wrote  this  manuscript 
was  accustomed. — The  manuscript  numbered  431  may  be  con- 
sidered as  one  raised  from  the  dead.  It  belongs  to  the  library 
of  the  Roman  Catholic  theological  seminary  at  Strassburg,  and 
is  of  the  twelfth  century.  Everyone  thought  that  it  had  perished 
during  the  siege  and  capture  of  Strassburg  by  the  Germans  in 
1870.  But  Albert  Ehrhard,  now  happily  again  in  Strassburg, 
discovered  the  manuscript  years  ago  safe  and  sound. — Fine  goods 
are  sometimes  said  to  be  done  up  in  small  packages.  That 
would  fit  number  461,  which  is  not  more  than  about  seventeen 
centimetres  high  and  ten  broad.  It  was  written  by  a  monk 
Nicholas  in  the  year  835,  and  is  therefore  one  of  the  oldest 


SMALL   LETTER  GREEK   MANUSCRIPTS  379 

Greek  manuscripts  in  small  letters  that  is  known.     Formerly  it 
was  at  St.  Saba,  south-east  of  Jerusalem. 


JOASAPH. 

Number  480,  written  in  the  year  1366,  is  one  of  two  concentric 
groups  of  manuscripts.  It  is  written  in  a  beautiful  hand  by  the 
monk  Joasaph.  The  first  group  is,  then,  of  the  manuscripts  written 
by  Joasaph.  But  I  find  that  Joasaph  is  a  member  of  a  widespread 
school  of  scribes  that  did  good  work  through  centuries,  and  this 
school  forms  the  second  group. — Number  565,  a  manuscript  of  the 
ninth  or  tenth  century  in  the  Imperial  Library  at  St.  Petersburg, 
corresponds  in  its  make  to  the  books  mentioned  by  Theonas,  for 
its  parchment  is  purple  and  the  writing  is  golden.  Its  text  is  of 
high  value  for  the  determination  of  the  re-wrought  text  which  we 
spoke  of  under  the  Codex  Bezae. — The  manuscript  651,  of  the 
eleventh  or  twelfth  century,  in  Dessau,  was  one  of  the  first  manu- 
scripts, with  one  in  Athens,  in  which  I  found  the  peculiar  reading 
in  John  8^,  where  instead  of  dKovo-avTes  it  has  avaytvwtr/covre?,  and 
places  before  our  eyes  the  dramatic  scene  in  which  Jesus  wTites  in 
the  sand  evos  ckcxo-tov  avrwv  ras  a/xaprta?,  the  sins  of  each  one  of 
the  accusing  Pharisees  who  have  brought  the  adulteress  before 
Him.  The  eldest  reads  his  sin  and  hurries  away,  and  the  rest 
follow,  each  after  seeing  that  his  sin  is  known.  I  have  since  found 
this  reading  in  a  number  of  manuscripts,  especially  upon  Mount 
Athos. — Number  699  is  a  divided  manuscript  of  the  eleventh 
century,  containing,  save  four  small  gaps,  the  whole  New  Testa- 
ment. Much  of  it  is  in  the  British  Museum,  but  Ephesians 
and  Revelation  are  at  Highgate,  where  the  manuscripts  are,  or 
used  to  be,  most  carelessly  guarded.  Highgate  School  should 
give  all  its  manuscripts  to,  or  deposit  them  in,  the  British 
Museum,  and  at  the  least  give  this  fragment  to  the  Museum  so 
as  to  complete  the  copy  of  the  New  Testament.  It  was  Edward 
A.  Guy  who  discovered  that  the  two  manuscripts  belonged 
together. 

Number  703  is,  so  far  as  I  know,  a  wanderer.  It  is  never- 
theless surely  resting  in  somebody's  library,  and  I  wish  that 
a  reader  of  these  lines  would  recognise  it  and  write  to  me  about 
it.    I  saw  it  at  Quaritch's  a  number  of  years  ago.    It  is  of  the  year 


380  THE  TEXT 

1 25 1,  and  can  be  further  recognised  by  the  circumstance  that 
leaves  three  and  six  were  cut  out  of  quire  41,  />ta',  and  new  leaves, 
three,  six,  and  seven,  thrust  in,  containing  John  y^^-^s  and  7^^- 
8^"^.  That  was  done  in  order  to  insert  the  story  of  the  adulteress, 
which  was  not  in  the  original  manuscript.  Often  we  find  a  single 
leaf  cut  out  and  two  put  in,  in  order  to  add  that  spurious  passage. 
In  John  1^8  the  word  jSrjOafSapa  was  changed  by  a  later  hand  to 
(S-qOavia.  In  8^  it  reads  fSaOios  yXOev  6  ts,  and  in  8^  vo/xw  rj/xlov, 
/xwijo-^?,  and  in  8''  dva/?A€«/^as.  At  the  beginning  are  some 
chronological  remarks,  in  which  the  scribe  put  in  by  mistake 
the  year  1259  instead  of  1251. 


VULGARIUS. 

Number  817  carries  us  back  to  Basel,  where  we  found 
numbers  i  and  2,  and  to  Erasmus'  edition  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. This  manuscript  is  of  the  fifteenth  century,  and  is  in 
the  University  Library  at  Basel,  having  formerly  belonged  to  the 
Dominicans  there.  On  the  title-page  of  Erasmus'  first  edition 
of  the  New  Testament  he  named  among  the  old  writers  from 
whom  he  had  drawn  notes,  a  Vulgarius.  It  really  seems  as  if 
he  did  not  know  who  this  Vulgarius  was.  But  he  found  out ; 
doubtless  someone  told  him,  having  seen  the  name  on  that  title 
and  in  his  commentary.  I  did  not  know  where  he  got  the 
name  until  in  1885  I  examined  the  manuscripts  at  Basel,  and 
found  on  the  front  cover  of  this  one  the  word  Vulgarius.  Then 
all  was  clear.  This  was  a  copy  of  the  Gospels  with  the  com- 
mentary of  Theophylact  of  Bulgaria.  In  Greek  B  is  pronounced 
like  our  V.  Long  before  Erasmus  some  monk  has  then  written, 
according  to  the  Greek  pronunciation,  on  this  volume  Vulgarius 
as  the  equivalent  of  BovXyapio?,  the  Bulgarian.  The  heading  of 
the  commentary  inside  had  been  ^  much  defaced  as  to  be  for  a 
hasty  glance  illegible,  and  Erasmus  had  been  content  to  use  the 
name  found  on  the  cover  of  the  book. 

The  manuscript  1076,  in  the  Laura  of  St.  Athanasius  on 
Mount  Athos,  written  in  the  tenth  century,  places  the  passage 
about  the  adulteress  after  the  close  of  John  with  the  remark : 
"  There  is  also  something  else  found  in  old  copies,  which  we  have 
thought  well  to  write  at  the  end  of  the  same  Gospel,  which  is 


SMALL  LETTER  GREEK   MANUSCRIPTS  381 

what  follows." — Numbers  1098  to  1 109  have  probably  all  perished. 
They  were  in  the  monastery  of  Simopetra  on  Mount  Athos,  where 
I  saw  them  in  passing  in  1886.  The  Ubrary  was  burned  in 
1 89 1. — It  was  similarly  supposed  that  the  books  of  the  Greek 
Gymnasium  at  Saloniki  or  Thessalonica  were  destroyed  by  fire. 
I  had  numbered  the  New  Testament  volumes  in  1886.  I  think 
that  some  of  them  are  still  there.  Others  took  wings  during  the 
confusion  of  the  fire,  and  have  found  a  place  in  another  Eastern 
library. — Number  1194,  of  the  tenth  or  eleventh  century,  at 
Mount  Sinai,  "was  written  on  the  island  Patmos,  in  the  cave 
where  the  holy  John  the  Theologian  saw  the  Revelation,  by  the 
hand  of  John,  a  monk,  for  the  head  monk  Theoktistos."  That 
name  is  probably  a  favourite  one  on  Patmos.  I  saw  there  a 
Theoktistos  over  eighty  years  of  age,  living  as  a  hermit  away  off 
in  a  lonely  corner  of  the  mountains. — It  will  be  remembered  that 
we  spoke  of  John  as  dictating  his  Gospel  to  Prochorus.  Number 
1322,  in  the  library  of  the  patriarch  of  Jerusalem  has  the  picture 
of  John  and  Prochorus,  and  gives  the  hand  of  the  Lord  reaching 
forth  from  the  cloud  as  I  described  it ;  and  John  says  to  Prochorus  : 
"  Child  Prochorus,  what  thou  hearest  from  me,  that  write." — The 
manuscript  1346,  in  the  patriarchal  library  at  Jerusalem,  reminds 
us  of  a  man  who  sinned  much  against  the  manuscripts,  whose 
memory  is  noisome  not  only  in  his  home  surroundings,  but  also 
through  the  monasteries  of  the  East.  Two  leaves  of  this  manu- 
script of  the  Gospels  are  at  St.  Petersburg.  The  Imperial  Library 
there  contains  a  large  number  of  fine  leaves  from  valuable 
manuscripts  which  Porfiri  Uspenski  of  Kiev  cut,  tore,  stole  out  of 
all  manner  of  books  in  the  large  Eastern  libraries.  How  coarse 
and  brutal  he  must  have  been  ! 


Acts  and  Catholic  Epistles. 

The  manuscripts  of  Acts  and  of  the  Catholic  Epistles  begin 
a  new  series  of  numbers.  Number  2  among  them  is,  like  number 
2  in  the  manuscripts  of  the  Gospels,  the  volume  that  Erasmus 
sent  to  the  printers  so  that  they  should  set  up  the  Acts  and 
the  Catholic  Epistles  and  the  Pauline  Epistles  from  it.  It  is  in 
the  University  Library  at  Basel. — The  manuscript  numbered  162 
is  of  the  fourteenth  century,  and  is  in  the  Vatican  Library  at 


382  THE  TEXT 

Rome.  It  contains  the  Acts  and  all  the  Epistles,  both  Greek 
and  Latin,  and  the  Greek  text  is  made  to  conform  to  the  Vulgate 
Latin  text.  Words  are  put  in  a  different  order.  Sometimes  the 
division  of  lines  and  syllables  in  the  Greek  is  assimilated  to  that 
in  the  Latin  text.  It  is  as  if  the  scribe  had  foreseen  the  decree 
of  the  Council  of  Trent,  that  the  Vulgate  should  be  the  one 
authentic  text,  the  measure  for  the  correctness  of  everything  else. 
This  manuscript  has  a  particularly  exceptional  position.  It  will 
be  remembered  that  we  saw  above  the  probability  that  a 
Dublin  manuscript  had  been  written  for  the  purpose  of  forcing 
Erasmus  according  to  his  promise  to  put  i  John  5'^-^  into  his  edition, 
he  having  said  that  he  would  put  it  in  if  it  were  shown  to  him 
in  a  single  Greek  manuscript.  Now  at  that  time  no  one  knew 
anything  of  this  manuscript.  And  if  anyone  had  known  of  it, 
it  would  have  given  him  another  shape  of  the  verse.  For  there 
can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  that  this  interpolation  is  part  and 
parcel  of  the  assimilation  of  the  Greek  text  in  this  manuscript  to 
the  Latin  text,  and  that  by  someone  who  was  not  a  good  Greek 
scholar.  It  is  therefore  not  in  the  least  degree  a  Greek  witness  for 
the  authenticity  of  the  spurious  words. — The  manuscript  311  is- 
instructive  for  this  1  John  5^-  ^-  At  the  word  "three,"  r/act?,  in 
I  John  5'''  is  the  marginal  note  :  "  The  Holy  Spirit,  and  the  Father, 
and  Himself  of  Himself." — I  referred  above  to  a  manuscript  of 
the  Gospels  written  by  George  Hermonymos,  which  was  partly  in 
three  libraries,  and  partly,  Mark,  of  unknown  residence.  Number 
331  here  is  made  up  of  James  and  First  and  Second  Peter  in  the 
Vatican  Library  at  Rome,  and  of  the  Epistles  of  Paul  in  four 
parts  in  the  National  Library  at  Paris,  all  of  which  I  connected 
with  each  other  in  1885  and  1886.  The  quires  6-9  and  27-31, 
or  ^'-0'  and  K^'-Xa',  with  2  Pet.  31^-Jude  ^^  and  2  Cor.  13^- 
Eph.  624,  are  still  to  be  sought  for.  It  was  also  written  by 
George  Hermonymos,  and  appears  to  be  related  to  at  least  two 
other  manuscripts  of  these  books. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  delay  over  any  of  the  manuscripts  which 
begin  with  the  Epistles  of  Paul.  We  have  already  spoken  of 
many  of  the  manuscripts  containing  these  Epistles,  but  beginning 
with  the  Gospels  or  the  Acts  or  Catholic  Epistles.  The  manuscript 
numbered  i  in  the  Revelation  is  again  a  manuscript  that  was  used 
by  Erasmus.  It  is  the  only  manuscript  that  he  had  for  Revela- 
tion, and  the  defects  of  various  kinds  in  these  pages  have  left 


SMALL  LETTER  GREEK   MANUSCRIPTS  383 

their  stamp  upon  Erasmus'  edition  of  that  book.  For  centuries 
this  volume  lay  hidden.  Finally,  Franz  Delitzsch,  then  at 
Erlangen,  discovered  it  in  the  library  of  the  family  Ottingen- 
Wallerstein  in  Mayhingen.  The  text  is  a  good  text,  but  it  is  easy 
to  confuse  it  at  some  points  with  the  accompanying  commentary 
of  Andrew  of  Caesarea,  and  Erasmus  did  in  one  place  consider 
words  of  commentary  to  be  text.  Then  again  the  end  of  Revela- 
tion (2  2^^-21)  was  lacking,  and  this  as  well  as  trifles  elsewhere 
Erasmus  translated  from  the  Latin  into  mediocre  Greek  for 
his  text.  This  manuscript  brings  before  us  the  one  kind  of 
manuscripts  of  the  Revelation,  the  manuscripts  which  present 
the  text  with  the  commentary  of  Andrew  or  of  Arethas  of  Csesarea. 
Of  these  manuscripts  there  are  a  number,  and  it  is  to  be  expected 
that  they  will  in  a  large  measure  be  from  one  or  two  antitypes, 
and  present  but  one  or  tw^o  types  of  text.  One  type  is  to  be  looked 
for,  if  it  can  be  proved  that  Arethas  adopted  the  text  used  by  his 
acknowledged  predecessor  Andrew.  Should,  however,  Arethas 
have  made  many  changes  in  the  text  of  Andrew,  then  two  types 
of  text  would  be  before  us  in  these  commentaries.  That  is,  then, 
one  kind  of  text  for  Revelation,  whether  in  one  or  two  types. 

The  other  kind  of  text  is  that  which  is  scattered  among 
non-biblical  manuscripts.  This  is  likely  to  be  of  different  types. 
As  specimens  of  this  position  of  Revelation  in  non-biblical 
manuscripts  we  saw  above  the  manuscript  in  the  Vatican  Library 
denoted  as  B.  Here  we  may  mention  18,  which  is  simply 
the  quires  13  to  15  out  of  a  manuscript  which  will  be  sure  to 
have  been  non-biblical, — then  number  31,  which  begins  with 
Dionysius  the  Areopagite; — number  32  is  again  probably  torn 
from  a  general  theological  manuscript,  and  has  at  the  end  an 
essay  of  Theodore  Prodromos; — number  49  is  in  a  volume  of 
the  orations  of  Gregory  of  Nazianzus ; — number  50  is  combined 
with  lives  of  the  saints; — number  58  contains  Job,  that  is 
biblical,  but  also  Justin's  Exhortation  to  the  Greeks; — number 
61  contains  various  writings  of  Basil,  Theodoret,  and  Maximus ; 
— number  65  contains  works  of  Basil,  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  and 
Peter  of  Alexandria; — and  81  contains  much  from  Gregory  of 
Nyssa.     That  is  enough  to  show  the  point  referred  to. 

So  much  for  the  small  letter  manuscripts  of  the  continuous 
text  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament.  We  now  turn  to  the 
books  which  have  a  liturgical  aim. 


3^4 


LESSON-BOOKS, 

When  treating  of  the  criticism  of  the  canon  we  had  occasion 
more  than  once  to  refer  to  the  reading  of  the  books  of  the  New 
Testament  in  church.  So  long  as  this  reading  took  place  upon 
the  basis  of  the  ordinary  manuscripts  of  the  text  of  these  books 
it  will  have  had  no  great  influence  upon  the  form  of  the  text  in 
one  way  or  the  other,  in  conserving  old  forms  or  in  introducing 
changes  of  any  kind  whatsoever.  Introductory  words  for  these 
lessons  drawn  from  the  manuscripts  of  the  continuous  text  may 
have  been  originally  added  verbally,  and  gradually  written  on  the 
margin  at  the  proper  places.  This  latter  habit  will  have  served 
as  a  transition  to  another  kind  of  manuscript.  For  in  time  it 
will  have  become  irksome  to  take  the  regularly  used  lessons  from 
a  general  text,  in  which  the  clergyman  will  not  have  been  able  so 
quickly  or  so  clearly  to  catch  the  proper  beginning  or  the  due 
ending  of  the  passage  for  the  day.  The  time  came  at  which  the 
clergy,  having  a  fixed  series  of  lessons  to  read  and  re-read,  placed 
these  lessons  in  special  books,  every  lesson  being  supplied  with 
the  necessary  words  of  introduction  and  with  such  more  trifling 
modifications  as  might  be  incident  to  and  necessary  in  detaching 
the  section  from  the  surrounding  text.  Thus  the  Church  came 
to  have  lesson-books. 

These  lesson-books,  especially  those  of  the  Gospels,  soon  be- 
came the  chief  ornaments  of  the  library  of  the  churches.  The 
Gospel  lesson-book  was  carried  through  the  church  at  the  chief 
service,  was  held  aloft  to  the  view  of  all  at  a  solemn  moment 
in  the  services.  It  was  then  necessary  that  it  be  ornamented 
in  the  highest  manner  possible.  The  front  cover  was  set  with 
such  precious  stones  as  could  be  obtained.  In  the  middle  of  it 
there  was  often  a  heavy  silver  crucifix.  The  writing  used  was, 
of  course,  at  first  the  large  letter  or  uncial,  and  those  large 
letters  may  have  continued  to  be  used  in  these  lesson-books  even 
after  they  had  passed  out  of  fashion  in  other  works,  and  even 


LESSON-BOOKS  385 

in  the  copies  of  the  scripture  with  the  continuous  text.  At  the 
beginning  of  each  lesson  stood  in  the  better  copies  a  large  letter 
that  was  at  least  red,  but  perhaps  painted  also  with  blue  and 
yellow,  or  was  traced  in  most  delicate  combinations  of  colours 
and  of  gold.  Sometimes  these  letters  were  formed  into  animals 
or  men,  perhaps  occasionally  hinting  even  at  a  scene  spoken  of 
in  the  lesson. 

The  volume  which  contained  the  lessons  from  the  Gospels  was 
called  a  "  Gospel,"  evayyeXtov.  We  could  fancy  to  ourselves  a 
certain  propriety  in  this  name,  as  though  the  distinctions  of  the 
four  evangelists  were  here  to  be  sunk  in  the  presentation  of  the 
one  "  Gospel "  lying  at  the  foundation  of  all  they  give.  But  this 
fancy  does  not  fit,  seeing  that  a  large  part  of  the  individuality  of 
the  evangelists  remains  even  in  the  books  of  lessons,  and  we 
know  also  that  at  a  very  early  age  the  four  Gospels  themselves 
were  designated  more  than  once  as  "the  Gospel." 

We  find  in  the  reading-books  two  parts,  each  of  which 
embraces  the  whole  year.  At  first  it  seems  strange  that  the 
lessons  should  be  given  twice  for  the  year,  and  it  might  be 
suggested  that  there  should  be  but  one  series  of  lessons  from 
beginning  to  end.  But  that  would  not  be  easy.  The  Church 
brought  over,  alas,  from  Judaism  a  movable  Easter,  and  we  are 
many  of  us  still  bound  by  this  unchristian  variable  day.  The 
consequence  was  that  the  two  parts  of  the  Gospel — we  shall  for 
the  sake  of  simplicity  now  speak  chiefly  of  the  Gospel — were 
devoted  respectively  to  the  movable  and  to  the  fixed  year,  and 
thus  give  the  year  twice.  We  shall,  however,  see  that  the  two 
years  do  not  begin  at  the  same  point  of  time.  Nowadays  in  the 
West  the  church-year  begins  largely  with  the  first  Sunday  of 
advent.     That  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  Greek  Church. 

The  church-year  in  the  East  begins,  not  with  the  quiet  scene 
at  the  manger  accompanied  by  the  heavenly  strains  of  angels,  but 
with  the  blaze  of  light  at  the  resurrection,  with  the  triumphant 
return  from  the  dead,  with  the  heralding  of  the  conquest  over 
death  itself.  Seven  weeks  bring  us  to  Whitsuntide,  where  a  new 
section  of  the  book  opens.  Here  in  this  section  one  part  of  the 
movableness  or  mutability  of  the  lessons  comes  into  play.  For 
according  to  the  advance  or  recession  of  Easter  there  remains  for 
the  time  after  Whitsuntide  a  larger  or  smaller  number  of  weeks 
before  what  we  call — it  is  nearly  the  same  thing — Michaelmas, 
25 


386  THE  TEXT 

but  what  the  Greeks  call  New  Year.  If  I  am  not  mistaken  this 
New  Year  is,  like  Easter  and  like  the  English  designation  of 
Sunday  or  the  Lord's  day  as  Sabbath,  something  borrowed  from 
Judaism,  and  this  therefore  is  a  continuation  of  the  Jewish  New 
Year,  Head  of  the  Year,  the  Seleucidian  or  Syro-Macedonian 
year.  The  book  provides  for  seventeen  weeks,  but  that  number 
rarely  or  never  occurs.  Then  from  September,  though  some- 
times not  from  the  first  day  of  the  month  but  from  the  Sunday 
after  the  festival  of  the  cross  on  September  fourteenth,  a  new 
series  of  lessons  begins.  The  beginning  of  this  series  of  lessons 
is  the  one  fixed  point,  so  far  as  I  can  see,  in  the  whole  movable 
year,  and  betrays  therefore  the  presence  in  the  ancient  Church 
of  a  practical  respect  for  the  given  New  Year,  even  though  we 
may  ask  whether  all  Christians  recognised  the  connection  of  the 
year  with  Jewish  habit  or  not.  It  was  the  time  of  the  equal  day 
and  night.  The  lessons  that  began  here  w^ere  again  compelled 
to  suit  themselves  to  the  motion  of  the  feasts,  and  to  fill  out  the 
time  that  separated  September  from  Lent.  The  lenten  lessons 
formed  a  compact  mass  by  themselves,  closing  with  the  evening 
of  Holy  Saturday,  and  giving  place  anew  to  the  Easter  celebration 
at  midnight.     This  is  the  movable  year. 

Of  course,  the  fixed  year  cannot  begin  at  the  same  place, 
cannot  depend  upon  the  Passover  feast  wandering  with  the 
Israelites  in  the  desert.  The  fixed  year  returns  to  the  Jewish  or 
Syro-Macedonian  year,  and  begins  with  the  first  of  September. 
It  cleaves  to  the  months  and  the  days.  It  is  called  a  "  month- 
reckoning  "  or  "  month-booking,"  a  menologion.  Saint  after 
saint  is  marshalled  before  us.  Christmas  rises  to  view,  and  then 
Epiphany.  And  it  closes  its  round  on  the  thirty-first  of  August 
with  the  laying  away  of  the  girdle  of  the  Virgin  Mary  in  the 
Chalkopratia  at  Constantinople. 

At  the  first  blush  it  might  seem  as  if  we  had  with  these  two 
divisions,  with  the  movable  and  with  the  fixed  year,  exhausted 
the  possible  need  for  Gospel  lessons.  That  is  not  the  case. 
One  of  the  greatest  festivals  in  the  East,  and  indeed  in  Europe 
as  well,  is  the  festal  day  of  the  local  church.  Now  that  birthday 
of  the  church  is,  of  course,  not  a  part  of  the  movable  year.  It  is 
for  each  single  church  a  given  fixed  day.  This  day  varies, 
however,  with  the  single  churches.  One  may  have  been  dedi- 
cated on  the  tenth  of  April,  another  on  the  twentieth  of  July, 


LESSON-BOOKS  387 

and  the  lesson  appointed  for  the  saints  of  those  particular  days 
may  have  no  possible  connection  with  the  dedication  of  a  Church. 
In  the  same  way  there  are  funeral  services  that  agree  with  neither 
year.  There  are  continually  earthquakes,  and  these  too  refuse  to 
bind  themselves  to  a  day  and  an  hour.  People  repent  of  their 
sins — perhaps  not  quite  so  often  as  would  be  desirable — and 
they  cannot  be  requested  to  save  up  their  feelings  of  a  change 
of  heart  until  a  particular  day  thereunto  set.  Armies  secure 
victories,  and  the  Church  must  celebrate  them  then,  and  not 
next  Whitsuntide,  and  not  on  the  eighteenth  of  the  next  or 
any  other  month.  There  must  therefore,  for  these  and  for  similarly 
unmanageable  occasions,  be  still  a  third  and  a  very  short  series  of 
lessons  for  various  purposes.     Therewith  the  book  closes. 

The  method  in  which  the  ancient  Church  chose  the  lessons 
for  all  these  movable  and  immovable  days  leads  us  far  into  the 
unknown  regions  of  the  past  history  of  Christianity.  There  are, 
so  much  is  plain,  at  least  three  different  lines  of  lessons  in  the 
movable  year,  and  it  is  possible  that  there  were  still  more,  only 
that  we  can  no  longer  distinguish,  or  have  not  yet  succeeded 
in  distinguishing,  them.  It  seems  to  me  likely  that  at  an 
extremely  early  date  the  lessons  were  chosen  for  the  Sundays. 
At  that  date,  and  therefore  we  must  go  very  far  back,  the  Church 
still  celebrated,  certainly  not  only  Sunday  but  also  the  Jewish 
Sabbath,  not  the  false  English  Sabbath  but  Saturday.  And  it 
seems  probable  that  then  the  lessons  for  the  Saturdays  or 
Sabbaths  were  still  from  the  Old  Testament.  At  a  later  time, 
but  still  at  an  early  period,  the  Gospel  lessons  for  the  Saturdays  or 
Sabbaths  were  chosen. 

We  must  stand  still  a  moment  here.  The  fact  that  the  lessons 
were  chosen  for  the  Saturdays  shows  us  that  the  Saturday  or  Sabbath 
was  still  especially  celebrated,  and  that  forces  us  to  the  same  con- 
clusion, stated  a  line  or  two  back,  for  the  preceding  period.  The 
celebration  of  Saturday  or  Sabbath  must  have  been  an  original, 
JewishrChristian  observance,  cannot  have  been  a  later  addition  to 
the  Christian  Sunday.  And  the  order  of  time  as  to  the  choice  of 
these  two  lines  of  lessons  is  for  this  reason  a  necessity,  because 
it  w^ould  be  inconceivable  that  the  Saturday  or  Sabbath  lessons 
should  have  been  chosen  first,  and  that  at  that  time  the  Sunday 
lessons  remained  Old  Testament  lessons.  A  body  might  be  in- 
clined to  fancy  that  the  Old  Testament  lessons  were  retained  for 


388  THE   TEXT 

Sunday  as  being  more  certainly  sacred,  even  after  the  Church  had 
proceeded  to  choose  Saturday  or  Sabbath  lessons  from  the 
Gospels.  I  regard  that  as  totally  impossible.  It  seems  to  me 
that  the  moment  that  the  distinctively  exceptional  and  divine 
character  of  the  Gospels  became  clear  to  the  Christian  Churches, 
that  at  that  moment  they  will  have  proceeded  to  set  for  the 
Church  services  for  Sunday  lessons  from  the  Gospels.  The 
reasons  that  I  do  not  assume  a  determination  of  these  lessons 
for  both  these  neighbouring  great  days  at  one  single  time  is  that 
the  two  lines  are  independent  of  each  other.  For  the  first  the 
Sabbath  or  Saturday  lessons  probably  remained  the  Jewish  Old 
Testament  lessons.  At  a  still  later  period,  at  one  which  I  at 
present  cannot  even  approximately  fix,  the  Gospel  lessons  for  the 
week-days  were  chosen  and  formed  a  line  for  themselves.  So 
much  for  the  movable  year. 

The  lessons  for  the  fixed  year  were,  I  am  inclined  to  think,  not 
chosen  at  one  time,  but  at  first  saint  by  saint  and  day  by  day. 
It  would  be  possible  that  after  the  year  was  tolerably  well  filled 
some  one  should  have  set  about  completing  it,  fitting  saints  to 
and  into  days  that  had  remained  saint-less,  and  assigning  Gospels 
to  their  memory.  Aside  from  the  regular  lesson-books,  we  some- 
times find  in  liturgical  manuscripts  a  set  of  Gospels  for  a  week, 
so  that  any  and  every  day  could  at  once  be  suited  with  a  lesson. 
Monday  was  the  day  of  the  angels,  Tuesday  of  John  the  Baptist, 
Wednesday  of  the  Virgin,  but  called  in  Greek  invariably  "  the 
bearer  of  God,"  Thursday  of  the  holy  apostles,  and  Friday  the 
day  of  the  crucifixion.  For  Saturday  and  Sunday  nothing  was 
given,  because  they  had  the  regular  lessons,  the  backbone  of 
the  determination  of  all  lessons.  It  might  be  queried  whether 
some  such  set  of  weekly  Gospels  or  week-day  Gospels  had 
preceded  the  choice  of  lessons  for  every  single  day.  I  could 
conceive  of  such  a  thing,  yet  at  present  I  do  not  think  it  likely, 
because  I  cannot  remember  finding  this  w^eek  of  Gospel  lessons 
in  other  than  comparatively  young  manuscripts. 

It  was  very  fitting  that  the  Greek  Church  should  place  at  the 
head  of  all  the  Gospels  on  the  opening  "holy  and  great  Sunday 
of  Easter,"  ry  ay  to.  KoX  jxcydXr}  KvpiaKr)  rov  Tracrp^a,  the  beginning 
of  the  Gospel  of  John  :  In  the  beginning  was  the  Word.  This 
Gospel,  with  but  one  or  two  exceptions,  then  fills  the  Sundays  and 
Saturdays  and  week-days  for  the  seven  weeks  until  Whitsuntide. 


LESSON-BOOKS  389 

The  close  is  an  interesting  one  both  for  the  textual  critic  and 
for  the  Christian  in  general.  The  last  i£sson,jU|e  Jj^on  for 
Whitsunday,  has  no  trace  of  t?he  story  of  ^e  adSreres^Between 
John  7^2  and  8^-, — that  is  for  the  critic.  For  the  general 
Christian  it  is  a  beautiful  ending  for  the  lessons  which  began 
h  :  In  the  beginning  was  the  Word,  and  the  Word  was  with 
d :  to  read  Jesus's  proclamation  of  Himself  in  John  S^^ . 
"  I  am  the  light  of  the  world.  He  that  followeth  Me  shall  not 
walk  in  darkness,  but  shall  have  the  light  of  life."  At  the  close 
of  this  section  it  must  be  observed  that  by  far  the  greater 
majority,  that  almost  all  of  the  books  of  lessons  have  all  the 
lessons  for  every  day  up  to  this  point.  From  this  point,  however, 
until  Lent  a  very  great  many  of  the  books  do  not  give  the  daily 
lessons,  but  only  those  for  the  Saturdays  and  the  Sundays. 

With  the  day  after  Whitsunday,  w^ith  Whitmonday,  the  Gospel 
according  to  Matthew  comes  in,  and  it  supplies  the  Saturdays 
and  Sundays  for  seventeen  weeks,  tentatively,  as  above  explained, 
thus  caring  for  the  weeks  between  Whitsunday  and  Michaelmas. 
In  reference  to  the  Gospels  for  the  week-days,  Matthew  is  their 
source  during  the  first  eleven  of  these  seventeen  weeks.  Now 
the  Gospel  of  Mark  does  not,  as  we  shall  see,  rise  to  the  dignity 
of  having  a  section  for  itself  in  which  it  furnishes  the  lessons 
both  for  the  Saturdays  and  Sundays  and  for  the  week-days.  For 
that  reason  it  is  after  the  eleventh  week  here  put  into  the 
Matthew  section  to  give  the  lessons  for  Monday,  Tuesday, 
Wednesday,  Thursday,  and  Friday.  At  Michaelmas,  then, — let  us 
say  at  the  beginning  or  at  the  middle  of  September,  seeing  that 
it  sometimes,  in  some  places,  depends  upon  the  Sunday  after 
September  fourteenth,  a  comparatively  fixed  point  as  I  above 
called  it, — the  Gospel  according  to  Luke  begins,  and  is  the  source 
of  the  Saturday  and  Sunday  lessons  until  Lent.  As  with 
Matthew  so  with  Luke,  Luke  offers  the  week-day  lessons  also 
until  the  close  of  the  twelfth  week — in  Matthew  it  was  the 
eleventh — and  then  these  are  drawn  from  Mark.  In  Lent  the 
Saturdays  and  Sundays  are  dedicated  to  Mark,  but  the  five  week- 
days are  filled  by  the  Old  Testament.  It  strikes  one  strangely  to 
think  that  in  this  great  Church  the  Old  Testament  is  placed  in 
such  a  comparatively  inferior  position.  Indeed,  manuscripts  of 
the  Old  Testament  are  rare  things,  and  there  are  not  even  many 
manuscripts   of  the   lesson-books   of   the   Old   Testament.     As 


I 


I 


390  THE  TEXT 

might  be  expected,  the  lessons  for  the  passion-week  are 
particuljjfc  r^fcerous  and  long.  On  Good  Friday  there  are 
twelve  ^RpeHwf  the«ssion  and  four  Gospels  of  the  four  hours. 
There  is  also  a  group  of  eleven  morning  resurrection  lessons. 

The  monthly  register,  the  fixed  part  of  the  Gospel,  is  very 
differently  treated  in  different  manuscripts,  varying  perhaps  wi^ 
the  money  or  with  the  time  which  those  who  ordered  or  he  w 
wrote  the  book  had  at  command.  Some  volumes  have  the  few 
strictly  necessary  great  days,  and  then  very  few  saints  and  almost 
none  of  less  known  name.  Others  have  a  saint  for  at  least  every 
day  in  the  year,  save  the  great  feasts.  Certain  lessons  are  often 
repeated  for  similar  memories.  For  example,  the  passage 
Matthew  ii27-30  jg  used  for  the  memory  of  a  saint  in  general 
among  the  "various"  Gospels  at  the  end  of  the  list,  and  is 
applied  to  various  special  or  single  saints  in  the  list  itself. 

The  "Apostle,"  the  book  containing  the  lesson  from  Acts 
and  the  Epistles,  is  far  more  rare  than  the  "  Gospel."  It  is  also 
arranged  in  two  parts,  but  in  one  respect  it  is  more  simple  than 
the  Gospel,  because  the  lessons  after  Whitsuntide  flow  on  in  a 
single  series  of  weeks  up  to  Lent.  The  book  of  Acts  is  read  on 
Saturdays  and  Sundays  and  week-days  between  Easter  and 
Whitsuntide,  and  it  is  of  interest  that  we  know  that  that  was  the 
custom  at  the  time  of  Chrysostom,  who  died  in  407.  It  is  clear 
from  that  circumstance  that  the  lessons  are  not  of  a  very  late 
date. 

In  a  large  number,  probably  in  the  majority  of  the  books  of 
lessons,  there  are  red  musical  signs  above  or  below  the  words  to 
direct  the  one  who  has  to  read,  intone,  or  sing  them  before  the 
assembled  Christians. 

Since  the  sixteenth  century  a  number  of  editions  ot 
"  Gospels "  and  "  Apostles "  have  been  printed,  largely  in 
Venice.  The  oldest  Gospel  that  I  know  of  is  the  one  printed 
in  Venice  in  1539.  I  have  never  heard  of  a  copy  of  it  in  the 
West,  save  a  single  one,  and  I  have  not  been  able  to  find  many 
copies  of  it  in  the  East.  The  fact  appears  to  have  been  over- 
looked that  in  the  earlier  editions  of  these  books  large  portions 
of  the  Greek  text  of  the  New  Testament  were  published  in  print 
drawn  directly  from  manuscripts,  and  without  connection  with 
the  Western  editions  of  the  New  Testament. 

The  manuscripts  of  these  lesson-books  have  their  own  Arabic 


LESSON-BOOKS  39 1 

numerals.  Number  13,  of  the  twelfth  century,  in  the  National 
Library  at  Paris,  reminds  the  reader  of  a  various  reading  some- 
times found  in  the  title  of  the  twelve  Gospels  of  the  passion. 
There  I  have  just  written  "passion."  We  say  "passion"  in  the 
West.  In  the  East,  in  the  Greek  Church,  they  say  "  passions," 
or,  if  you  please,  "  sufferings  "  :  ra  cuayyeAta  tqjv  iraBdv.  That  is 
the  Greek  rule :  The  Gospels  of  the  passions.  But  there  are  a 
few  manuscripts  that  have  :  The  Gospels  of  the  passion :  ra 
cL-ayyeXia  tov  iraOov^.  I  think  that  they  must  be  attributed  to 
the  West,  to  the  influence  of  the  Latin  Church. — The  manuscript 
46  is  of  the  costly  kind,  on  purple  parchment  in  golden  uncial 
writing.  It  is  of  the  ninth  or  tenth  century,  and  is  in  the 
Imperial  Library  at  Vienna.  Like  many  a  distinguished  book,  it 
brings  more  show  than  contents,  for  it  only  offers  us  nineteen 
select  lessons. — Number  117  of  the  twelfth  century  in  the 
Laurentiana  at  Florence  is  also  in  golden  writing,  and  contains 
about  twenty-two  lessons. — In  number  280,  which  lies  in  the 
Greek  Church  of  St.  George  at  Venice,  and  is  of  the  fourteenth 
century,  we  find  two  characteristic  subscriptions,  showing  us  how 
these  manuscripts  were  used  for  special  requests  for  prayer  on  the 
part  of  those  who  wrote  or  who  possessed  or  who  made  presents 
of  them :  "  The  present  holy  Gospel  was  completed  by  me  the 
worthless  priest  and  first  judge  (advocate)  of  the  holy  metropolis 
of  Lacedaemonia,  Nicholas  Malotros,  and  ye  priests  who  in  the 
future  open  it  pray  for  me  the  wretched  one  in  your  sacred 
functions,  that  the  Lord  may  also  forgive  you  your  transgressions 
in  the  terrible  day  of  His  repaying."  Doubtless  in  some  such 
cases  the  writing  of  the  book  was  the  self-imposed  task  in 
expiation  of  a  sin,  and  the  prayer  desired  was  aimed  to  cover  that 
sin.  Nevertheless  the  expressions  worthless  and  wretched  here 
used  are  so  frequently  found  in  such  subscriptions  that  one  is 
inclined  to  attribute  them  to  a  show  of  modesty.  A  later  hand 
wrote  the  following:  "Every  one  who  reads  this  holy  Gospel 
should  pray  for  and  remember  in  the  sacred  functions  Nicholas 
the  son  of  Eustathius,  who  bought  it  and  gave  it  to  me  the 
Spiritual  Isaiah,  in  order  that  I  remember  him  so  long  as  I 
remain  among  the  living,  and  that  after  my  departure  hence  I 
leave  it  to  whatsoever  monastery  I  please.  I  received  it  in  the 
year  from  Christ  1462,  the  eleventh  indiction."  In  general  the 
dates  in  the  manuscripts  are  in  the  year  of  the  world.     Only  a 


392  THE  TEXT 

few  late  manuscripts  write  the  year  of  our  Lord  as  this  scribe 
Isaiah  does. — Number  292  is  of  the  tenth  century,  and  is  in  the 
city  Hbrary  at  Carpentras  in  southern  France.  It  is  written  in 
uncial  letters.  In  the  year  1091  Epiphanius  Magister  Paschales 
presented  it  to  the  monastery  of  the  bearer  of  God  of  Alypos. 
There  are  several  historical  notes  on  the  margins,  telling  of  the 
pest  on  Cyprus  in  1438  and  in  1575. — In  the  manuscript  396 
Hilarion,  who  wrote  it  in  Beroea,  tells  how  they  had  been  driven 
from  Mount  Athos  by  the  Turks,  and  had  halted  in  Beroea. 
Having  no  "Gospel"  in  the  monastery,  and  there  being  no 
skilled  writer,  re^vm^s,  he  had  copied  this  Gospel :  "  And  ye  that 
read,  if  ye  find  mistakes,  forgive  and  pray  to  the  Lord  for  me 
Hilarion,  monk  and  priest,  written  in  the  year  6836,  tenth 
indiction."  That  is,  1328. — In  number  835  of  the  Greek 
gymnasium  at  Saloniki,  or  Thessalonica,  the  writer  makes  a  new 
word  to  name  in  one  breath  the  people  whom  he  wished  to  have 
pray  for  him :  "  Ye  who  read  this  holy  volume  priestpastor- 
deacons,  TrpecrfSvTepoTraTraSoSidKoyoL,  pray  for  me  to  the  Lord." 
He  wrote  in  the  year  1072. 

Herewith  we  leave  the  Greek  manuscripts  of  the  text  of  the 
New  Testament.  No  other  Greek  book  has  anything  like  the 
amount  of  testimony  to  its  text  that  the  books  of  the  New 
Testament  have.  The  only  difficulty  is  that  there  are  not 
workers  and  there  is  not  money  enough  at  command  to  secure 
the  collation  of  these  hundreds  of  manuscripts  in  all  parts  of 
Europe  and  of  the  East.  The  greater  part  of  them  have  only 
been  touched  in  select  passages.  Now  that  is  far  better  than 
nothing,  and  we  may  be  very  thankful  for  what  has  been  done 
in  that  respect.  Yet  that  is  not  the  clear-cut,  whole  work.  For 
the  text  of  the  New  Testament,  the  right  thing,  the  whole  thing, 
the  very  best  thing  that  can  be  done  is  just  good  enough.  There 
should  be  a  carefully  drawn  up  plan  and  a  systematic  inspection  of 
the  whole  field,  and  then  the  work  should  be  divided  up  among 
collators  and  finished  piece  by  piece,  library  after  library,  and 
sent  in  copy  to  four  or  five  of  the  great  libraries  of  the  world, 
so  as  to  be  at  the  service  of  every  Christian  scholar  who  is 
prepared  to  work  upon  the  subject.  Christianity  could  well 
spare  the  men  and  the  money  for  this  purpose.  Every  manu- 
script should  also  be  photographed,  and  its  ornaments  and  large 
section  letters    should   be    copied,  so  that    even    externally  the 


LESSON-BOOKS  393 

comparison  of  the  way  in  which  the  books  have  been  prepared 
and  written  may  lend  its  aid  to  the  grouping  of  kindred  manu- 
scripts and  to  the  determination  of  the  time  and  place  of  origin 
of  the  manuscripts.  Such  a  systematic  endeavour  to  work  over 
this  field  should  receive  not  merely  the  interested  attention  but 
also  the  most  active  help  of  all  classical  philologians  who  busy 
themselves  with  Greek  texts.  For  every  advance,  every  new 
determination  in  reference  to  the  Greek  manuscripts  of  the  New 
Testament,  is  of  peculiar  moment  for  Greek  palaeography.  No 
classical  books,  and  not  the  whole  of  the  Greek  classics  combined, 
offer  such  an  opportunity  as  the  manuscripts  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment offer,  for  the  decision  of  palaeographical  problems  from  the 
fourth  century  down  to  the  sixteenth. 


394 


VI. 

TRANSLATIONS, 

Beyond  all  question  the  original  Greek  text  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment has  the  chief  interest  for  us,  and  must  remain  our  final 
aim.  It  is  perfectly  true  that  Jesus  and  His  disciples  without 
doubt  commonly  spoke  Aramaic,  an  Aramaic  that  had  come 
down  from  the  North,  though  I  consider  it  as  possible  that  He 
and  they  also  understood  and  spoke  more  or  less  Greek,  seeing 
that  the  tiny  province  in  which  the  Jews  prevailed  was  so  closely 
surrounded  by  and  permeated  by  Greeks.  The  words  of  Jesus, 
therefore,  which  the  Gospels  have  preserved  for  us  are,  aside 
from  a  few  cases,  words  that  have  been  translated  from  the 
Aramaic  into  Greek.  Now  it  might  at  first  sight  seem  proper  and 
desirable  that  we  should  in  textual  criticism  be  especially  glad  if 
by  any  chance  we  came  upon  and  could  insert  at  the  given  place 
in  the  Gospels  any  Aramaic  words  that  Jesus  spoke  instead  of 
the  Greek  words  which  now  stand  there.  Not  in  the  least.  We 
should  rejoice  with  all  our  hearts  to  be  able  to  determine 
certainly  any  of  those  Aramaic  words  and  sentences.  But  they 
would  have  nothing  directly  to  do  with  textual  criticism.  The 
textual  critic  must  necessarily  limit  his  work  to  the  reconstruction 
of,  the  purifying  of,  the  accurate  determination  of  the  original 
Greek  text  of  these  New  Testament  books. 

In  pursuing  this  aim  the  critic  appeals  first  to  the  manuscripts 
which  in  one  way  or  another  offer  him  in  its  entirety  or  in  large 
parts  and  sections  that  Greek  text,  and  we  have  already  spoken  of 
these  manuscripts.  As,  however,  these  Greek  Gospels  with  their 
translations  give  us  the  Aramaic  words  of  Jesus,  so  is  it  also 
possible  that  translations  of  these  Greek  Gospels  be  of  very  great 
assistance  to  us  in  determining  the  original  Greek  text.  These 
translations  have  in  one  way  an  extraordinary  interest  for  the  con- 
nection between  the  New  Testament  and  Christianity,  because 
thousands  of  Christians  in  the  Churches  of  the  respective  countries 
for  centuries  have  drawn  and  many  still  draw  much  of  what  they 


TRANSLATIONS  395 

know  about  Jesus  and  His  work  and  His  worth  from  these 
translations.  Hut  their  advantage  for  us  Hes  in  another,  in  the 
inverse  direction.  We  wish  to  know  their  source.  We  wish  to 
determine  the  form  from  which  they  were  taken,  the  model  after 
which  they  Avere  drawn,  the  seal  which  made  this  impression. 
Then  we  turn  back  to  the  early  Church  and  pass  beyond  the 
wide  circles  which  the  Greek  Church  embraces,  and  ask  among 
other  languages  and  peoples  for  those  who  used  the  books  of  the 
New  Testament  in  other  than  the  Greek  tongue.  Everywhere  it 
must  then  be  -our  effort  to  ascend  the  stream  of  each  such 
tradition  to  its  head,  to  the  point  at  which  it  has  branched  off 
from  the  Greek  mother  tradition  in  our  Gospels. 

Of  course,  we  cannot  expect  to  be  able  to  reach  in  any 
language  the  precise  point  at  which  the  very  first  translation  of 
any  part  of  the  New  Testament  was  made.  It  would  be  scarcely 
possible  to  imagine  that  positively  nothing  of  the  volume  had 
been  transferred  to  a  given  language  before  a  definite  day  upon 
which  some  one  set  himself  the  aim  to  translate  it,  and  then  in  a 
single  effort  rendered  every  part  of  it  from  Matthew  to  Revelation 
into  his  native  tongue.  We  should  indeed  have  to  ask  ourselves, 
whether  no  one  translated  some  one  book  or  more  than  one 
book  into  another  language  even  before  the  collection  was 
gathered  together  into  one  whole.  And  we  must  in  the  nature 
of  the  case  presuppose  that  many  fragments  or  various  single 
books  were  here  and  there  translated  before  the  whole  was 
systematically  taken  in  hand. 

Our  inward  inclination  would  lead  us  to  lay  at  first  and 
continually  the  greatest  stress  upon  the  translations  made  in  the 
East.  We  feel  instinctively  that  they  must  be  of  most  service  to 
us,  because  they  lie  so  near  to  the  origin  of  Christianity.  This 
feeling  is  natural.  Yet  two  considerations  join  to  combat  the 
preeminence  of  these  Eastern  translations,  to  decrease  their 
practical  value  for  us.  On  the  one  hand,  the  Eastern  languages 
are  to  such  a  degree  in  their  nature  foreign  to  the  Greek  language 
that  it  was  not  easy,  indeed  in  some  cases  that  it  was  not  in  the 
least  possible,  to  render  the  expressions  of  the  New  Testament 
writers  in  an  adequate  manner  in  the  desired  tongue.  That  is 
one  side.  And  on  the  other  hand,  we  of  the  West  are  so  very 
seldom  well,  thoroughly,  livingly  acquainted  with  those  Eastern 
tongues,  that  we  find  it  difficult  to  attain  to  an  even  tolerably 


39<^  THE  TEXT 

correct  judgment  as  to  the  original  text  from  which  the  Eastern 
phrases  have  been  drawn.  The  former  of  the  two  difficulties 
had  a  curious  effect  upon  the  translations,  in  that  the  given 
foreigner  at  times  adopted  Greek  words  into  his  own  language. 
Sometimes  such  words  were  prepositions  or  conjunctions,  but  in 
other  cases  they  were  substantives.  If  in  the  Syriac  translation 
one  meets  with  a  long  word,  the  proper  thing  to  do  with  it  is  to 
spell  it  in  Greek  letters,  in  which  case  it  usually  proves  to  be  an 
old  friend.  We  do  not  need  to  say  that  that  was  bad  translat- 
ing on  the  part  of  the  given  translator,  yet  it  presents  a  most 
excellent  result  for  textual  purposes.  It  may  at  once  be 
emphasised  that  in  general  we  may  declare  that  the  worse  a 
translation  is,  as  a  translation,  the  more  the  translator  fails  to 
deprive  the  original  of  its  form  and  local  colouring  and  to  mould 
it  into  the  distinctive  idioms  of  his  own  language,  the  more  easily 
we  can  recognise  under  his  rough  work  the  Greek  text  which  he 
had  before  his  eyes.  We  must,  however,  take  each  translation 
as  it  comes.  The  work  that  was  done  centuries  ago  must  be 
brought  to  bear  upon  our  task  as  well  as  the  circumstances 
admit. 

The  value  of  the  translations  attaches  especially  at  first  to  the 
localising  of  texts  or  of  readings,  or  we  may  say  to  the  perceiving 
of  the  extent  to  which  readings  were  spread  abroad.  For  it  is 
clear  that  a  reading,  whencesoever  it  may  have  come,  if  it  be  in 
the  Syrian  translation,  must  have  been  in  Syria ;  if  it  be  in  the 
Coptic  translation,  must  have  been  in  Egypt.  Furthermore,  in 
so  far  as  we  may  succeed  in  dating  a  translation  approximately, 
its  text  offers  us  a  clue  to  the  age  of  a  given  form  or  of  given 
readings. 

Syriac  Translations. 

Let  us  take  our  stand  in  Syria.  Palestine  is  almost  a  Syrian 
province.  It  is  a  continuation  of  the  same  mountains  and  valleys 
and  desert  and  sea-coast  as  those  that  are  in  Syria.  The  early 
Christians  who  gathered  together  at  Antioch  formed,  so  far  as 
we  know,  the  first  important  assembly  of  Christians  outside  of 
Palestine.  Antioch  was  the  capital  of  Syria,  but  as  well  the 
second  capital  of  the  Roman  Empire,  It  was  a  Greek  city,  yet 
it  is  impossible  that  it  should  not  have  had  a  large  proportion  of 


TRANSLATIONS— SYRIAC  397 

Syrians  within  its  walls.  At  no  very  great  distance  were  other 
large  towns.  We  have  already  alluded  to  the  fact  that  Paul's 
campaign  directed  against  the  Christians  in  or  around  Damascus 
assures  us  that  at  that  extremely  early  date,  probably  in  the  year 
30  of  our  era,  there  must  have  been  an  appreciable,  technically 
an  attackable,  number  of  Christians  there.  And  everything,  the 
letters  of  the  chief  priests  and  the  elders  in  Jerusalem  to  their 
Jewish  brethren  in  Damascus,  points  to  Aramean  not  to  Greek 
Christians.  Paul  would  not  have  dreamt  of  dragging  Greeks 
bound  from  Damascus  to  Jerusalem  to  have  them  punished.  It 
must  have  been  genuine  Jews  whom  he  had  in  view.  The  result 
of  Paul's  journey  to  Damascus,  his  conversion,  his  stay  there  to 
be  instructed  in  Christianity,  and  his  two  years  there  or  in  that 
neighbourhood,  must  have  been  a  large  increase  in  the  number 
of  Christians. 

Considering  the  frequent  communication  between  Damascus 
and  Antioch  on  the  one  hand,  and  Aleppo,  Edessa,  and  Nisibis 
and  Peter's  Babylon  on  the  other  hand,  it  would  be  easy  to 
believe  that  even  during  the  years  before  the  death  of  Paul 
many  Christians  were  to  be  found  in  that  neighbourhood;  it 
would  be  hard  to  believe  that  there  were  none  there.  Given 
a  number  of  Christians,  it  is  not  possible  to  determine  at  what 
precise  moment  of  time  they  felt  it  necessary  for  them  to  have  a 
translation  of  the  New  Testament  wTitings.  Let  us  leave  that 
time  for  a  moment. 

Ephraim  the  Syrian,  who  was  mentioned  on  occasion  of  the 
manuscript  at  Paris,  C,  named  after  him,  was  born  at  Nisibis 
about  the  year  306,  born  a  heathen,  became  a  pupil  of  the 
bishop  of  Nisibis,  lived  in  or  near  Edessa,  and  died  there  in 
378.  He  is  a  witness  to  the  fact  that  in  his  day  the  Syriac 
translation  had  long  been  in  existence.  The  point  is  for  the 
moment,  before  other  possibiHties  arise,  to  make  an  equation  of 
some  kind,  to  calculate  how  long  the  Christians  of  those  lands 
could  have  waited  after  the  year  30  or  the  year  60  before  they 
demanded  or  prepared  a  translation  of  the  New  Testament ;  and 
conversely,  how  long  before  Ephraim's  day  we  should  think  that 
the  translation  had  been  in  use.  It  does  not  seem  to  me  likely 
that  the  Christians  in  Syria  will  have  waited  for  a  New  Testament 
of  their  own  until  the  year  150.  Having,  however,  until  now  no 
proofs  one  way  or  another,  I  am  for  the  moment  inclined  to  name 


398  THE  TEXT 

that  year  150  as  a  date  at  which  the  Syrians  probably  were  able 
to  read  and  hear  in  their  own  tongue  such  New  Testament  bool^s 
as  they  received.  In  all  this  exact  dating,  be  it  remembered,  we 
are  going  by  necessity  upon  theory.  Testimony  is  at  present  not 
to  be  found  for  it.  We  have  in  actual  parchment  and  ink  a 
multitude  of  Syrian  manuscripts,  and  we  must  look  at  them  and 
see  what  they  are  like,  what  classes  they  show  among  themselves 
that  seem  to  determine  something  about  their  history. 

A  little  before  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century,  in  the 
year  1842,  William  Cureton,  in  the  British  Museum,  found  among 
some  manuscripts  from  the  Nitrian  desert  in  Egypt  fragments  of 
an  old  copy  of  the  Syriac  Gospels  probably  written  about  the 
year,  let  us  say,  460.  And  fifty  years  later,  in  the  year  1892, 
Mrs.  Agnes  Smith  Lewis  and  her  twin  sister  Mrs.  Margaret 
Dunlop  Gibson,  discovered  in  the  monastery  of  St.  Catherine  on 
Mount  Sinai  a  palimpsest  manuscript  which  lacked  only  about 
eight  pages  of  the  four  Gospels.  This  manuscript  is  of  the 
fourth  or  fifth  century.  The  work  of  these  two  learned  ladies 
upon  this  and  the  other  manuscripts,  especially  Syriac  and 
Arabic,  of  the  Sinaitic  monastery  forms  a  peculiar  and  a  brilliant 
chapter  in  the  scientific  achievements  in  library  work  during  the 
last  decades.  Their  photographing  the  whole  palimpsest,  their 
researches  upon  it  again  at  Sinai  with  a  corps  of  scholars,  their 
edition  of  it,  their  repeated  examination  of  it — I  saw  them  at 
work  at  Mount  Sinai  on  their  sixth  visit  in  February  and  March 
1906 — and  an  edition  that  they  now  are  preparing,  claim  for  them 
the  warmest  thanks  of  all  biblical  and  Semitic  scholars,  and  have 
received  the  highest  recognition  in  learned  circles,  not  only  in 
Great  Britain  but  also  in  Germany  and  America. 

The  age  of  these  two  manuscripts  is  of  itself  a  warrant  for 
the  importance  of  their  testimony.  The  text  which  they  gave 
us  is  undoubtedly  of  a  much  higher  age  than  the  manuscripts 
themselves,  and  appears  to  be  of  the  Re-Wrought  Text,  the  wide- 
spread text  of  the  second  century.  It  would,  of  course,  be 
possible  that  this  text  should  have  been  translated  during  the 
third  century.  For  myself,  if  anyone  asserts  that,  I  can  scarcely 
prove  him  wrong.  That  does  not,  however,  agree  with  my  view 
of  the  whole  situation,  of  the  probabilities  of  the  case.  I  assume 
that  this  text  is  essentially  the  earliest  Syriac  text,  always  pro- 
vided that  no  one  proves,  what  I  myself  could  without  difficulty 


TRANSLATIONS— SYRIAC  399 

agree  to,  that  parts  of  the  New  Testament  were  translated  at 
Edessa  even  during  the  first  century  or  early  in  the  second 
century,  before  the  reshaping  of  the  text  had  taken  the  cast 
which  it  put  on  by  the  middle  of  the  second  century. 

A  certain  complication  of  the  question,  one  which  may 
some  day  help  to  a  better  decision  as  to  it,  is  found  in  the 
existence  of  a  Gospel  harmony  made  by  Tatian.  Some  declare 
that  Tatian  made  his  harmony  at  first  in  Greek,  others  that 
the  Syrian  text  was  the  original.  I  have  little  doubt  that  the 
harmony  was  originally  Greek.  Tatian  was  a  Syrian — the  name 
Assyrian  was  also  used — by  place  of  birth,  but  he  was  a  Greek 
nevertheless,  and  was  brought  up  as  a  Greek.  It  seems  to  me 
to  be  especially  worthy  of  note  that  the  Arabic  translation 
particularly  emphasises  in  the  heading  the  fact  that  the  harmony 
was  the  work  of  Tatian  "the  Greek."  Had  he  written  the 
harmony  in  Syrian  it  can  scarcely  be  doubted  that  he  would 
there  have  been  called,  as  he  has  else  often  been  called,  Tatian 
the  Syrian  and  not  Tatian  the  Greek.  So  much  for  that  point. 
It  must  nevertheless  be  conceded  that,  even  if  Tatian's  harmony 
had  been  originally  composed  in  Greek,  it  would  have  been  alto- 
gether a  possible  thing  that  it  should,  either  by  him  or  by  his 
immediate  neighbours,  at  an  early  date  have  been  translated  into 
Syrian.  He  may  have  prepared  the  original  harmony  at  once 
after  his  separation  from  the  Church  in  the  year  172,  or  he  may 
have  made  it  several,  even  ten,  years  earlier.  We  do  not  yet 
know  about  it. 

It  is  declared  that  the  Syrian  harmony  of  Tatian  was  the 
first,  and  for  a  long  while,  possibly  until  the  year  250,  the  only 
written  representative  of  the  four  Gospels  in  the  Syriac  language. 
I  have  thus  far  not  been  able  to  see  that  this  statement  has 
been  proved.  The  harmony  was  very  convenient.  It  was  a 
cheap  and  handy  compendium  of  the  Gospel.  I  see  no  diffi- 
culty in  supposing  that,  even  if  a  Syriac  translation  of  the  four 
Gospels  in  their  entirety  had  been  made  ten  or  fifty  years  be- 
fore Tatian's  book  appeared,  this  book  should  in  wide  circles 
have  usurped  the  place  which  the  four  Gospels  would  otherwise 
have  occupied.  Were  this  the  case  the  number  of  manuscripts  of 
the  four  Gospels  would  remain  limited,  and  it  would  certainly 
often  happen  that  even  scholars  would  refer  to  the  handy  book. 
We  should  never  forget  the  practical  side,  and  should  never  for- 


400  THE  TEXT 

get  that  the  view  of  Scripture  at  that  day  was  several  removes 
from  the  view  held  by  the  strict  inspirationists  of  the  nineteenth 
century,  who  are  now  apparently  dying  out  in  educated  circles. 
The  practical  side  tells  us  that  those  people  largely  not  blessed 
with  very  great  fortunes,  and  not  given  to  much  reading,  seeing 
that  many  of  them  could  not  read  at  all,  were  far  more  likely  on 
that  account  to  choose  a  small  book  when  they  could  buy  one 
instead  of  a  large  one.  It  is  further  to  be  remembered  that  this 
small  book  was  supposed  to  contain  all  that  was  in  the  larger 
book,  that  only  useless  or  unnecessary  repetition  was  avoided  in 
it.  Lastly,  the  thing  at  which  the  Christians  then  and  there 
aimed  was  not  an  amulet  but  the  Gospel.  They  wished  for  the 
sense,  the  message,  the  proclamation  of  good-will  to  men,  and 
they  thought  that  they  had  this — and  I  think  too  that  they  had 
this — in  the  Diatessaron. 

If  Tatian  wrote  his  harmony  at  first  in  Syrian,  and  if  it 
appeared  before  the  Syrian  translation  of  the  separate  four 
Gospels  appeared,  then  it  v/ould  be  a  matter  of  inevitable 
necessity  that  its  form  should  have  an  important  influence 
upon  the  form  of  the  four  Gospels  when  they  came  to  be 
rendered  into  Syrian,  and  this  would,  I  concede,  account  for 
similarity  of  readings  here  and  there.  Inasmuch,  however,  as  it 
seems  to  me  in  every' way  more  reasonable  to  suppose  that  the 
Syrian  translation  of  the  separate  four  Gospels  was  in  vogue  long 
before,  or  at  least  ten  years  before,  Tatian's  harmony  saw  the  light 
in  a  Syrian  form,  I  insist  upon  it  that  in  this  case  that  Syrian 
form  of  the  four  Gospels  will  by  just  as  inevitable  a  necessity 
have  had  a  great  influence  upon  the  shaping  of  the  Syrian  words 
and  sentences  in  Tatian's  Diatessaron  or  harmony  of  the  four. 

Going  back  to  our  manuscripts,  I  take  it  for  granted  that  the 
Syrian  text  represented  in  the  Curetonian  and  in  the  Lewis- 
Gibson  manuscripts  is  the  text  of  the  Syrian  Gospels  as  it  was 
in  existence  in  the  year  150,  little  as  I  should  wish  to  be  so 
obstinate  as  to  say  that  it  had  not  in  the  later  years  experienced 
one  modification  or  another.  This  is  what  I  call  the  Old-Syrian 
text.  It  could  have  been  called  then  Peshitta,  but  I  do  not 
know  that  that  word  was  used  for  the  text  of  the  New  Testament 
at  so  early  a  date.  The  statement  just  made  as  to  the  Old- 
Syrian  text  is  sometimes  so  conceived  of  as  if  it  necessarily  were 
antagonistic    to    the   high    age   of  the  so-called  Peshitta  Syriac 


TRANSLATIONS— SYRIAC  4OI 

translation.  The  previous  sentence  gives,  I  think,  a  clue  to  my 
thoughts  upon  that  point.  I  take  it  that  the  relation  between 
that  Old-Syrian  text  and  the  Peshitta  is  one  conditioned  by  age 
and  experience.  I  suppose  the  Old-Syrian  to  have  with  time,  by 
means  of  the  work  of  Syrian  scholars  in  the  third  and  in  the 
fourth  century,  glided  into  the  form  which  the  centuries  that 
followed  used,  and  which  is  now  found  in  the  editions  of  the 
Peshitta. 

The  word  Peshitta,  which  used  to  be  written  Peshito,  means 
"  simple,"  and  as  applied  to  a  text,  especially  of  a  translation 
it  would  appear,  seems  to  amount  to  as  much  as  "usual," 
"current,"  "common,"  and  may  be  compared  with  the  word 
Vulgate  in  the  Latin  Church.  The  Syrians  named  their  trans- 
lation of  the  Old  Testament  which  had  been  made  from  the 
Hebrew  "  the  Peshitta,"  as  distinguished  from  a  later  translation 
made  from  the  Greek  text  of  the  Septuagint.  Probably  the  name 
passed  over  to  the  New  Testament  through  the  association  of 
the  New  Testament  with  that  Peshitta  Old  Testament  translation. 
We  shall  have  occasion  to  refer  to  the  text  of  the  Peshitta  later 
in  connection  with  the  Greek  text,  and  can  here  leave  it.  The 
first  edition  of  the  Peshitta  was  published  at  the  wish  of  the 
Jacobite  patriarch  of  Antioch  named  Ignatius.  He  sent  Moses 
Harden,  a  priest  from  Mesopotamia,  to  Europe  to  find  someone 
who  would  help  the  poor  Church  make  an  edition.  Moses  tried 
in  vain  in  Rome  and  in  Venice  to  find  a  Maecenas.  He  found 
at  last  in  Vienna,  however,  a  statesman,  the  imperial  chancellor, 
Johannes  Albert  Widmanstadt,  who  actually  understood  Syriac. 
The  two  printed  then  the  edition  which  was  issued  in  1555  in 
four  parts,  the  Gospel,  the  Epistles  of  Paul,  the  Acts,  the  Catholic 
Epistles.  The  Catholic  Epistles  were  but  three  in  number: 
James,  First  Peter,  First  John.  That  edition  was  an  interesting 
one.  No  Second  Peter,  no  Second  and  Third  John,  no  Jude, 
no  Revelation.  Further,  it  did  not  contain  Luke  22^^-  ^^  or  John 
81-11  the  Adulteress,  or  i  John  5^.  George  Henry  Gwilliam  pub- 
lished the  Gospels  of  the  Peshitta  at  Oxford  in  1901. 

The  Peshitta  is,  however,  not  the  only  form  of  the  Syrian 
text.  Another  form  is  called  the  Jerusalem  or  Palestinian  form. 
We  have  not  very  many  representatives  of  this  text.  It  is 
rougher,  less  scientific  than  the  Peshitta.  The  local  colouring 
is  much  like  that  of  the  dialect  of  the  Jerusalem  Talmud. 
26 


402  THE  TEXT 

Probably  it  is  more  nearly  conjoined  to  the  Old  Syrian  than  to 
the  later  polished  form  of  the  Peshitta.  The  best  theory  at 
present  is  that  it  was  made  for  the  Melkitic  Church  in  Palestine, 
perhaps  in  the  fourth  century,  that  being  the  Church  of  the 
Syrian  tongue  which  holds  to  the  patriarch  of  Constantinople. 

Another  form  of  the  Syrian  text  is  in  reality  a  double  form, 
or  consists  of  two  forms.  The  reason  why  we  do  not  entirely 
separate  them  from  each  other  is  that  we  cannot,  that,  in  spite 
of  the  labours  of  Isaac  H.  Hall  and  of  John  Gwynn,  we  have 
not  yet  come  to  understand  the  exact  distinction  between  them 
throughout  the  New  Testament.  The  earlier  part  of  these  texts, 
the  form  that  was  first  evolved,  might  be  named  after  Philoxenus 
or  Xenaia,  who  was  from  488  to  518  the  monophysitic  bishop 
of  Mabbogh  or  Hierapolis,  and  who  seems  to  have  first  thought 
of  the  plan,  or  after  Polycarp  who  prepared  this  translation,  in 
the  year  508.  Polycarp's  name  might  easily,  however,  be  con- 
fused with  that  of  the  great  Polycarp  of  Smyrna,  who,  though  he 
was  a  friend  of  Ignatius  of  Antioch,  may  not  have  known  Syrian. 
It  is  in  the  nature  of  the  case  impossible  for  Polycarp  to  have 
translated  the  Greek  text  anew  without  any  reference  to  the 
current  translation  upon  which  he  had  been  brought  up.  He 
could  not  for  the  purpose  of  making  a  new  text  go  to  China  and 
cleanse  besides  his  brains  and  his  tongue  from  all  traces  of  the 
existing  one.  But  we  cannot  yet  say  so  very  much  about  this  text. 
For  it  was  revised,  and  thus  far,  as  first  said,  we  cannot  dis- 
tinguish clearly  between  the  one  and  the  other  of  the  two  forms. 

This  other  form  of  the  twin  texts  arose  a  century  later,  in 
the  year  616,  in  the  "Nine  Mile"  monastery,  that  far  from 
Alexandria.  This  monastery,  in  the  village  Enaton,  was  a 
monastery  of  St.  Anthony.  Thomas  of  Heraclea,  in  Syria,  that 
was  his  birthplace,  had  been  bishop  of  Hierapolis,  but  had  been 
compelled  to  fly  from  his  diocese  and  take  refuge  in  that 
monastery,  and  he  took  up  the  task  of  revising  Polycarp's  text. 
P'or  this  purpose  he  used  two  or  three  manuscripts  of  the 
Gospels,  one  of  Acts  and  of  the  seven  Catholic  Epistles — this 
text  contains  seven,  and  not  merely  three  Catholic  Epistles — 
and  two  of  the  Epistles  of  Paul.  We  see  the  result  of  his  work 
in  part  with  absolute  certainty,  because  the  readings  are  standing 
on  the  margin  of  the  text.  We  perceive  at  once  that  he  had 
good  manuscripts,  manuscripts  that  agreed  largely  with  the  Re- 


TRANSLATIONS— SYRIAC,  COPTIC  403 

Wrought  Text  of  the  second  century  as  represented  in  the  Greek 
large  letter  manuscripts  marked  D.  That  we  know  about.  But 
what  else  he  may  have  done  is  not  yet  perfectly  evident.  He 
may  have  let  the  text  stand  without  a  single  change,  just  as 
Polycarp  had  determined  it.  Or  he  may  have  changed  it,  made 
it  according  to  his  opinion  better,  in  various  ways.  This  trans- 
lation is  an  excellent  one  for  the  textual  critic,  in  the  sense 
explained  a  little  way  back.  It  does  not  pay  the  least  attention 
to  the  Syrian  habits  of  thought  or  speech.  It  settles  upon  the 
words  to  be  used,  fixes  the  order  of  the  words,  builds  the 
sentences  as  far  as  it  is  possible  after  the  Greek  text.  It  is, 
humanly  speaking,  more  likely  that  Thomas  should  have  put 
many  a  reading  that  pleased  him  into  the  text.  Syrian  scholars 
will  doubtless  some  day  unravel  the  tangled  threads  ot  these  two 
forms  of  the  text  and  assign  to  each  of  the  two,  to  Polycarp  and 
to  Thomas,  what  belongs  to  each.  John  Gwynn  published  in 
1897  the  Revelation  in  the  Philoxenian  or  Polycarp  form.  He 
is  the  master  in  this  field.  May  he  live  to  give  the  Church  an 
edition  of  the  twin-text  for  the  whole  New  Testament. 

It  is  not  possible,  nor  is  it  necessary,  for  us  to  treat  of  the 
Syrian  manuscripts  in  general.  But  we  must  glance  for  an 
instant  at  the  books  of  lessons.  We  have  seen  that  in  the  Greek 
Church  the  movable  part  of  the  year  began  with  Easter  and  the 
fixed  part  with  September.  The  Syrian  books  begin  both  parts 
with  the  fixed  date  of  Epiphany,  and  close  with  the  Sunday  for 
the  Dead.  It  will  be  remembered  that  the  sixth  of  January  was 
the  old  date  for  Christmas.  Many  of  the  books  contain  only 
the  lessons  for  Sunday,  with  perhaps  the  week-day  lessons  for 
Lent  and  Easter  week.  Some  books  contain  only  feast-days, 
and  begin  with  the  angel  and  Zacharias,  or  with  the  angel  and 
Mary,  or  with  the  birth  of  John  the  Baptist,  or  of  Jesus.  More- 
over, the  Syrian  books  of  lessons  combine  more  frequently  than 
the  Greek  books  do  Old  Testament  lessons  with  those  from  the 
second  part  of  the  New  Testament,  from  the  Apostle. 


Coptic  Translations. 

In  turning  to  the  Egyptian  or  Coptic  translations  we  again 
have  to  consider  the  question  of  date.     St.  Anthony  heard  the 


404  THE  TEXT 

Gospels  read  in  Church  in  Coptic  when  he  was  a  boy.     That 
assures  us  that  there  was  a  Coptic  translation  in  use  about  the 
middle  of  the  third  century.      Now,  it  must   be  kept  in   mind 
that   Egypt   was  a   land  of  science  and    of  education   and  of 
progress,  in  spite  of  the  pyramids  in  their  stolid  calm.     In  conse- 
quence, seeing  that  as  with  the  Syrian  translation  we  are  without 
direct  testimony,  I  presuppose  that  the  two  main  Coptic  transla- 
tions were  made  before  the  close  of  the  second  century.     We 
may  name  three  forms  of  the  Coptic  translation  or  three  trans- 
lations, of  which,  however,  the  third  is  a  somewhat  uncertain 
quantity.     The  dialect  of  Lower  Egypt  is  represented  by  a  trans- 
lation which  has  been  called  Alexandrian  and  Memphitic,  but  is 
now  termed  Boheiric.     The  dialect  of  Upper   Egypt  gives  us 
the  Thebaic  or  Saidic  translation.     These  two  appear  to  have 
been  made  directly  from  the  Greek.     The  third  translation,  the 
Fayyumic,  probably,  or  possibly,  flowed  from  the  Saidic  towards 
the  end  of  the  third  century.     The  two  great  translations  have 
been  favoured  by  fortune,  at  least  from  the  point  of  view  of 
textual  criticism,   so  little  from   other  points  of  view  as    their 
experiences  could  be  called  desirable.     It  was  a  pity  that  the 
great  Church  split,  and  that  Jacobites  and  Melkites  were  separated 
from  each  other.     But  this  separation  of  the  Coptic  Church  from 
Constantinople  and  the  Imperialists  prevented  the  translations 
from  being  spoiled  by  the  textual  movements  and  changes  in 
Syria  and  Asia  Minor.     Then  the  Arabs  came  a  century  and  a 
half  later,  and  began  to  thrust  the  Coptic  language  aside  and  to 
put  Arabic  in  its  place,  and  that  tended  to  keep  the  old  texts 
pure.     And  finally,  a  good  and  an  honourable  thing  too,  the 
scribes  and  scholars  of  the  twelfth  and  the  succeeding  centuries 
did  all  they  could  to  keep  the  text  free  from  false  additions  and 
false  changes. 

The  Boheiric  form,  to  use  the  Arabic  name  for  the  dialect 
of  Lower  Egypt,  was  so  wielded  by  the  translator  as  to  represent 
the  Greek  text  very  fairly,  different  as  the  languages  are.  In 
Boheiric  it  is  not  possible  to  distinguish  between  a  sentence  with 
a  participle  and  one  with  a  finite  verb.  Nor  is  there  a  passive 
voice.  Greek  passives  are  sometimes  rendered  by  a  third  person 
plural  of  the  active  used  impersonally,  sometimes  by  the  third 
personal  singular  if  a  singular  subject  can  be  brought  into  play, 
and  sometimes  by  the  qualitative  form  of  the  verb.     The  whole 


TRANSLATIONS— COPTIC,  ETHIOPIC  405 

New  Testament  was  translated  into  Boheiric,  but  the  Revelation 
is  placed  at  one  side  by  itself  and  is  not  copied  with  the  other 
books.  This  treatment  of  Revelation  agrees  well  with  what  we 
have  observed  in  the  Greek  Church,  and  with  memories  of  the 
criticism  of  Dionysius  of  Alexandria  upon  this  book,  which  we 
referred  to  in  treating  above  of  the  canon.  The  books  are 
arranged  in  the  order:  Gospels,  Pauline  and  Catholic  Epistles, 
Acts.  George  Horner,  of  Frome  and  Oxford,  has  with  un- 
wearying diligence,  through  years  of  work,  copying  and  collating 
from  London  to  Cairo  and  from  Rome  to  St.  Petersburg,  placed 
before  the  Church  a  complete  edition  of  this  version  in  four 
volumes  with  an  abundant  critical  apparatus. 

The  Saidic  form  in  Upper  Egypt  came  later  to  the  hands  of 
Western  scholars,  and  was  for  an  indefinite  time  very  limited  in 
extent  of  testimony.  The  translation  is  of  a  rougher  description 
than  that  of  the  Boheiric  dialect.  Although  the  Saidic  translator 
uses  Greek  words  if  possible  still  more  freely  than  the  Boheiric 
translator,  he  is  less  true  to  the  form  of  the  Greek  sentence,  and 
he  often  leaves  out  conjunctions.  George  Horner  is  preparing 
an  edition  of  this  version. 

The  Fayyumic  translation  rejoices  in  several  names,  unless 
we  please  to  say  that  some  of  the  names  are  the  names  of 
relatives  and  not  of  this  translation  itself.  It  will  be  enough, 
under  the  present  ignorance  of  all  concerned  as  to  the  qualities 
of  this  or  of  these  forms,  to  say  that  the  names  Bashmuric, 
Ammonic,  Elearchic,  Oasitic,  Akhmimic,  Subsaidic,  and  Middle 
Egyptian  are  all  at  the  command  of  a  scholar  who  is  ready  to 
examine  these  fragments.  If  the  names  continue  to  multiply  I 
fear  we  shall  soon  have  as  many  as  there  are  words  in  the  trans- 
lation, the  fragments  are  so  few  and  brief. 

The  lesson-books  in  the  Coptic  Church  begin  with  the  month 
Thoth,  or  on  the  twenty-eighth  of  August. 


Ethiopic  Translation. 

Pursuing  our  way  towards  the  south,  we  approach  the 
Axumitic  Church  in  Abyssinia,  with  its  Ethiopic  translation. 
Here  the  question  of  date  is  extraordinarily  difficult.  Two 
Ethiopic    scholars   who  expressed    themselves   fully   upon    the 


406  THE   TEXT 

question  varied  between  the  fourth  and  the  seventh  century,  so 
that  we  do  not  yet  know  how  to  define  a  certain  period.  I 
accept  Dillmann's  view  that  the  translation  was  made  from  the 
Greek  text  between  the  fourth  and  the  sixth  century.  The  trans- 
lator does  not  appear  to  have  been  well  acquainted  with  Greek, 
and  therefore  to  have  made  many  mistakes.  A  revision,  which 
Dillmann  placed  in  the  fourteenth  or  a  later  century,  corrected 
the  mistakes  with  the  help  of  Coptic  and  Arabic  translations.  At 
that  date,  in  the  fourteenth  century,  the  Ethiopic  language  was 
replaced  in  daily  intercourse  by  the  Amharic  language.  The  first 
edition  of  the  Ethiopic  New  Testament  was  made  in  Rome  in 
two  volumes  in  the  years  1548  and  1549.  A  monk,  Tesfa  Zion, 
of  the  order  Takla-Haimanot,  who  was  by  birth  an  Ethiopian 
from  Malhez,  came  to  Rome  from  the  monastery  Dabra-Libanos 
on  Mount  Lebanon,  with  two  other  monks  from  that  monastery 
named  Tank'a  Wald  and  Za-selase.  They  brought  with  them 
Ethiopic  manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament.  Three  men  whom 
they  met  in  Italy,  one  of  whom  was  an  archdeacon  from  Con- 
stantinople, helped  the  Ethiopian  monks  prepan^  and  print  that 
edition.  Thus  far  we  have  no  scientific  edition  of  the  Ethiopic 
New  Testament. 

Armenian  Translation. 

The  Armenians  used  at  first  the  Syrian  Bible.  Mesrob  and 
the  Armenian  patriarch  Isaac  began  in  the  fifth  century  to 
prepare  an  Armenian  Bible  from  the  Syriac.  In  the  year  431, 
however,  two  of  Mesrob's  pupils  named  John  "  Ekelensis  "  and 
Joseph  "  Palnensis  "  were  at  the  Council  of  Ephesus  and  brought 
Greek  manuscripts  .  home  with  them.  Mesrob  and  Isaak 
recognised  at  once  the  greater  value  of  the  Greek  text,  and  threw 
aside  the  translations  that  they  had  already  made  from  the 
Syriac.  John  and  Joseph  were  sent  to  Alexandria  to  learn 
Greek  thoroughly,  and  then  they  translated  the  whole  New 
Testament  from  the  Greek.  Nothing  was  more  natural  than 
that  their  long  use  of  the  Syrian  New  Testament  should  have  so 
strongly  impressed  its  forms  upon  their  minds  as  to  cause  them 
here  and  there  to  use  Syrian  readings.  The  Armenian  synod 
of  the  year  1662  sent  a  clergyman  named  Oskan  from  the  city 
Erivan  near  Ararat   to  the  West  to  try  to  have  the  Armenian 


TRANSLATIONS— ARMENIAN,   LATIN  407 

Bible  printed.  Oskan  stayed  a  long  while  in  Rome,  but  could 
do  nothing  there.  At  last,  in  the  year  1666,  he  published  in 
Amsterdam  the  first  edition  of  the  Armenian  Bible. 

We  know  almost  nothing  about  the  Georgian  or  Grusinian 
translation.     It  was  printed  in  1723  in  Moscow. 

Persian  translations  of  a  late  date,  two  of  the  fourteenth  and 
one  of  the  eighteenth  century,  one  from  the  Greek,  one  from  the 
Syriac,  and  one  from  the  Latin,  do  not  at  all  satisfy  our  wishes. 
It  seems  as  if  the  Christians  in  Persia  must  have  long  before  the 
fourteenth  century  freed  themselves  from  the  necessity  of  using 
the  Syrian  translation. 

There  are  a  number  of  Arabic  translations,  the  earliest  dating 
apparently  from  a  time  soon  after  Mohammed.  Therewith  we 
may  turn  from  the  Eastern  to  the  Western  translations. 


Latin  Translations. 

We  have  passed  by  the  companies  and  groups  of  the  various 
Eastern  translations.  There  really  were  among  them  different 
translations  of  such  an  age  and  of  such  a  literary  character  and  at 
least  partially  to  such  an  extent  accessible  that  we  could  make 
some  use  of  them.  In  the  West  and  North  we  have  three  that  we 
can  name.  Two  of  these,  however,  are  not  yet  of  great  moment 
for  us.  The  Slavic  translation  is  still  too  little  known  in  the 
West  to  be  thoroughly  weighed  and  proved.  And  the  Gothic 
translation  is  only  a  matter  of  fragments.  The  one  remaining 
translation  is  the  Latin.  But  that  is  one  of  eminent  importance  : 
One  child  of  the  West,  but  a  lion. 

The  proper  way  to  attack  the  Latin  form  of  the  Bible  would, 
I  think,  be  to  divide  its  history  and  growth  into  three  parts,  and 
treat  of  Old  Latin,  Middle-Latin,  and  New- Latin.  But  the 
Latin  manuscripts  are  not  my  province.  That  belongs  to 
John  Wordsworth,  the  bishop  of  Salisbury.  So  we  shall  only 
have  two  parts :  Old-Latin  and  Vulgate,  keeping  in  mind  that 
the  name  Vulgate  for  our  purposes  is  a  comparatively  modern 
affair.  The  Old-Latin  used  to  be  called  the  Itala,  but  that  name 
was  wrong  and  has  been  shelved.  It,  the  term  Old-Latin, 
belongs  in  general  to  such  examples  of  the  Latin  translation  as 
were  written,  translated,  before    the  time  of  Jerome,  we  might 


408  THE   TFAT 

say  roughly  before  the  year  400,  seeing  that  he  died  in  420. 
The  rise  or  origin  of  the  Latin  translation  gives  occasion  to  many 
a  disputable  question,  offers  many  a  problem  that  we  at  least 
LO-day  cannot  solve.  The  statement  has  been  made  that  there 
were  at  the  first  a  number  of  separate  translations  made.  With 
like  certainty  we  have  been  assured  that  every  phenomenon  in 
the  history  of  this  text  is  to  be  led  back  to  one  single  original 
translation.  We  have  already  spoken  of  the  probable  sporadic, 
tentative,  partial  translation,  a  thing  that  in  every  case  is  quite 
likely  to  have  taken  place.  Perhaps  such  previous  work  was 
more  likely  in  Latin  circles  than  in  Syrian  or  Coptic  circles. 
The  two  languages,  Greek  and  Latin,  were  cognate,  and  they 
were  coexistent  in  many  provinces  of  the  Roman  Empire.  The 
translation  would  in  this  case  be  so  much  easier  than  in  the 
case  of  the  Eastern  translations,  that  it  is  likely  to  have  lured 
many  a  priest  or  deacon  or  reader  to  put  pen  to  paper  and  to 
place  the  Greek  text  into  the  known  words,  which  were  adapted 
to  reading  before  the  Church.  But  in  spite  of  the  existence  of 
such  preliminary  work  the  possibility  would  remain  that,  when 
the  time  came,  a  single  complete  translation  might  have  been 
issued  at  one  place,  or  that  two  or  three  complete  translations 
might  have  seen  the  light  at  about  the  same  time  in  different 
provinces. 

We  should  bear  in  mind  that  the  greater  part  of  the  literary 
phenomena  in  a  case  of  this  kind  admit  of  reduction  to 
the  one  or  to  the  other  of  these  origins.  A  single  translation 
would  admit  of  revising  in  different  directions,  in  different 
provinces,  and  might  appear  in  the  end  not  to  be  related  even 
distantly  to  its  own  former  self.  And  a  double  or  triple  trans- 
lation might  by  the  usage  of  the  provinces  be  so  assimilated  and 
so  differentiated  as  to  give  the  appearance  of  being  forms  of  a  single 
original.  In  so  far,  moreover,  as  one  translation  should  precede 
others,  its  influence,  if  it  were  known,  could  hardly  fail  to  be 
yielded  to  by  any  succeeding  translator. 

It  is  pertinent  to  ask,  where  a  translation  of  the  Greek  text  into 
Latin  would  be  first  to  be  expected.  One  thinks  at  the  word  Latin 
involuntarily  of  Rome.  Rome  was  nevertheless  in  the  second 
century  still  a  Greek  city  in  the  main,  and  the  Christians  in  it 
seem  to  have  been  chiefly  Greeks  until  well  into  the  third  century, 
so  that  a  translation  was  not  likely  to  be  called  for  there  until  after 


TRANSLATIONS— LATIN  409 

the  beginning  of  the  third  century.  The  districts  of  Northern  Italy 
may  at  an  early  period  have  been  anxious  to  have  a  Latin  Bible. 
But  the  place  where  the  want  of  the  Latin  form  was  probably 
first  felt,  and  felt  most  keenly,  was  Northern  Africa.  There 
Greek  was  not  so  well  known.  There  were  a  great  many 
Christians  in  the  province,  and  few  of  them  understood  Greek. 
Sunday  after  Sunday  the  lessons  had  to  be  translated,  interpreted 
by  word  of  mouth.  That  was  troublesome  for  the  reader,  and 
surely  sometimes  unsatisfactory  to  the  hearers.  It  is  then  in 
Northern  Africa  that  a  Latin  translation  was  probably  first 
needed  and  first  made.  That  may  have  been  the  only  complete 
first  translation.  For  it  will  certainly  have  soon  been  carried 
to  Rome  and  to  Northern  Italy,  and  if  translations  did  not  yet 
exist  there,  the  clergy  of  those  provinces  will  doubtless  have 
eagerly  taken  this  North  African  text  and  corrected  into  it  their 
own  provincial  expressions,  at  the  same  time  changing  anything 
else  that  did  not  agree  with  the  texts  which  they  were  accustomed 
to  use. 

The  African  translation  lies  before  our  eyes  in  manifold 
quotations  by  a  number  of  African  Church  writers.  It  was  not 
a  peculiarly  polished  piece  of  work.  It  paid  much  more  respect 
to  the  Greek  words  and  to  the  Greek  order  of  the  words  than 
was  consistent  with  a  good  Latin  style.  For  the  textual  critic 
that  is  a  very  welcome  kind  of  work.  We  can  tell  much  better 
what  the  original  text  before  the  eyes  of  the  translator  was. 

From  one  translation,  then,  or  if  anyone  insist  upon  it,  from 
two  or  three  independent  Latin  translations,  the  manuscripts 
passed  through  the  provinces  to  Gaul,  to  Great  Britain,  to 
Ireland.  Every  province  has  its  own  local  names  for  all  kinds 
of  things.  Every  province  has  its  own  way  of  treating  the 
language  of  Rome.  And  each  province  changes  the  new  trans- 
lation to  suit  its  own  tongue  and  ears  and  needs,  not  forgetting 
to  change  readings  which  did  not  conform  to  the  text  they  had 
used  up  to  that  time,  to  the  manuscripts  that  they  had  in  their 
hands.  After  the  first  receipt  and  adoption  of  the  foreign  work 
the  Latin  text  in  each  province  will  usually  have  begun  a  life 
for  itself,  and  will  have  passed  through  stages  of  development 
peculiar  to  itself.  Undoubtedly  the  mental  activity  or  dulness 
of  the  clergy  in  given  provinces  will  have  influenced  the  text  in 
one  direction  or  another,  seeing  that  bright,  quick  thinking  and 


410  THE  TEXT 

acting  men  will  have  more  readily  taken  up  their  pens  for 
necessary  correction,  or  even  for  unnecessary  and  more  wilful 
change,  whereas  sluggish  and  thoughtless  men  will  have  through 
carelessness  allowed  the  manuscripts  copied  to  deteriorate.  As 
a  result,  provincial  texts  will  have  been  produced :  a  Galilean,  a 
British,  an  Italian  text.  All  of  these  European  texts  should 
have  a  certain  relationship  to  each  other  from  the  more  active 
intercourse  between  the  provinces.  Perhaps  it  will  be  possible 
finally  to  determine,  as  Westcott  and  Hort  said,  three  types  of 
text, — an  African,  a  European,  and  an  Italian  type. 


Old  Latin  Manuscripts. 

The  first  manuscript  that  we  have  of  the  Old-Latin  Gospels 
is  called  a,  for  we  use  for  these  Old-Latin  manuscripts  the  small 
letters.  It  appears  to  have  been  written  in  the  fourth  century, 
and  it  may  have  been  written  for  or  even  by  the  hand  of 
Eusebius,  the  bishop  of  Vercelli,  who  died  as  a  martyr  in  the  year 
371.  It  is  in  the  cathedral  of  Vercelli,  where  it  used  to  lie  in  the 
sacristy,  and  be  shown  about  and  kissed  as  a  relic  until  it  was 
torn  almost  to  tatters.  Now  it  is  carefully  guarded  in  an  upper 
room  under  a  glass  case. — The  letter  e  is  the  Codex  Palatinus  at 
Vienna.  It  is  of  the  fifth  century.  Oddly  enough,  a  leaf  from 
it  is  in  Trinity  College  at  Dublin. — The  manuscript  k  of  the 
fifth  or  sixth  century  at  Turin  came  from  Bobbio,  and  is  said  to 
have  belonged  to  the  founder  of  Bobbio,  Columban,  who  died 
in  the  year  615. — In  the  manuscript  m,  which  is  at  Rome  in  the 
monastery  of  the  Holy  Cross,  and  is  of  the  eighth  or  ninth 
century,  Hort  was  inclined  to  think  that  he  had  discovered  a 
Spanish  form  of  the  text.  Its  name  is  Speculum,  and  it  has 
been,  but  incorrectly,  attributed  to  Augustine.  It  contains 
Church  lessons  from  all  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  save 
Third  John,  Hebrews,  and  Philemon.  The  text  in  it  is  much 
like  the  text  used  by  Priscillian.  The  fact  that  it  does  not 
contain  the  three  heavenly  witnesses  i  John  5'^'  ^  is  the  more 
interesting  in  connection  with  its  Spanish  allures,  for  the  newest 
researches  attribute  the  insertion  of  those  witnesses  to  Priscillian 
himself. — At  Stockholm  in  Sweden,  in  the  great  library,  there 
lies,  I  think,  the  largest  known  manuscript.     It  is  of  the  thirteenth 


TRANSLATIONS— LATIN  4I  I 

century,  and  contains  among  other  things  a  Latin  Bible.  Among 
the  manuscripts  of  the  Old-Latin  text  for  Acts  and  for  Revelation 
it  bears  the  letter  g,  and  is  apparently  of  the  Italian  type.  Only 
in  it  do  we  find  a  complete  Old-Latin  Revelation.  Formerly  it 
was  in  Bohemia,  and  was  carried  from  Prague  to  Sweden  as  war 
booty  in  the  year  1648  at  the  close  of  the  Thirty  Years'  War. 

We  observed  above  that,  however  the  origin  of  the  Latin 
form  of  the  text  of  the  New  Testament  may  be  conceived  of, 
whether  as  proceeding  from  one  original  or  from  more,  the 
resulting  facts  have  been  such  as  may  be  explained  from  either 
theory.  The  various  provinces  had  texts  which  little  by  little 
became  more  and  more  corrupt,  more  and  more  different  from 
the  earliest  text,  and  more  and  more  different  from  each  other. 
This  was  a  plague  for  the  learned  members  of  the  clergy,  and 
Damasus,  the  bishop  of  Rome,  appears  to  have  asked  Jerome 
the  Dalmatian,  in  the  year  382,  to  produce  a  new  Latin  Text. 
By  the  year  384  he  had  finished  the  Gospels,  and  handed  them 
over  to  Damasus.  This  was  his  first  revision,  and  he  did  it  very 
well,  taking  care  as  far  as  possible  to  change  no  well-known 
phrases  unless  it  proved  to  be  positively  necessary.  He  knew 
very  well,  and  he  wrote  it  in  advance,  that  the  people  would 
not  like  the  change.  The  opposition  to  his  work  was,  however, 
so  great  that  he  was  much  more  conservative  in  constituting  the 
text  of  the  rest  of  the  Bible.  Dean  Burgon's  opposition  to  the 
English  revision  of  1881  seemed  to  us  serious,  but  it  was  mere 
child's  play  beside  the  antagonism  shown  in  the  fourth  century. 
Augustine  wrote  to  Jerome  the  story  of  a  bishop  who  had  used 
a  reading  of  Jerome's  in  Jonah  4^.  The  people  of  the  church 
raged  about  it,  and  insisted  upon  asking  the  Jews  about  it.  The 
Jews  said  that  the  Hebrew  text  supported  the  reading  familiar 
to  the  people.  And  thereupon  the  bishop  was  forced  to  restore 
that  old  and  false  reading  in  order  not  to  become  a  shepherd 
without  a  flock,  a  bishop  without  people.  It  was  centuries 
before  the  revision  of  Jerome  was  accepted  by  the  Church. 
When  Gregory  the  Great  sat  in  the  chair  at  Rome  both  the  old 
and  the  new  translation  were  there  in  use.  Sometim.es  the  ninth 
century  has  been  named  as  the  time  at  which  Jerome's  work 
came  into  general  use.  Yet  the  Anglo-Saxons,  who  copied  many 
manuscripts,  kept  to  the  old  text.  And  the  manuscript  of  the 
Old-Latin  text  marked   c,  the   Codex   Colbertinus,  was   written 


412  THE   TEXT 

in  the  eleventh  century,  and  that  Gigas,  the  gigantic  manuscript 
at  Stockholm  with  the  Acts  and  Revelation  in  Old-Latin,  was 
written  in  the  thirteenth  century. 

All  the  while  the  manuscripts  were  being  corrected  and 
altered  hither  and  thither,  and  from  the  eighth  century  on 
every  effort  was  made,  now  by  Charlemagne  with  Alcuin, 
now  by  Theodulf  the  bishop  of  Orleans  (787-821),  now 
by  Langfranc,  archbishop  of  Canterbury  (i  069-1 089),  now  by 
Stephen  11.  Harding,  bishop  of  Citeaux  (f  1134),  and  now  by 
the  Cardinal  Nicholas  (1150),  to  reduce  the  chaos  of  manu- 
scripts to  order,  but  in  vain.  In  the  thirteenth  century  regular 
books  of  corrections  were  made  by  the  faculty  at  Paris,  by 
the  Dominicans,  and  by  the  Franciscans,  yet  the  text  grew 
ever  worse.  Roger  Bacon  attacked  the  corrupted  text  in 
strong  terms  about  the  year  1266,  and  berated  particularly  the 
Dominicans  for  vacillation  in  correction :  "  As  a  result  their 
correction  is  the  worst  corruption,  and  the  destruction  of  the 
text  of  God."  It  is  often  supposed  that  the  name  Vulgite 
attached  to  Jerome's  translation  from  the  first.  So  far  as  I  have 
been  able  to  discover,  the  name  was  not  definitely  attached  to 
it  until  the  decree  of  the  Council  of  Trent  on  the  8th  of  April 
1546,  and  was  in  that  decree  not  at  all  used  as  a  well-known 
name,  not  used  as  a  name  at  all,  but  merely  as  an  adjective 
in  the  sense  of  "common"  or  "current."  The  council,  not 
having  a  suspicion  of  the  real  facts  in  the  case,  called  it  the 
"old  and  current  edition."  It  might  almost  have  been  said 
that  the  other  editions,  could  the  corruptions  so  far  as  they 
were  Old-Latin  have  been  gathered  together  by  themselves,  were 
still  older  and  still  more  current,  and  that  this  decree  was  meant 
to  raise  a  dam  to  prevent  their  further  progress.  The  name 
Vulgate,  then,  in  our  way  of  using  it,  is  a  modern  invention. 
Pope  Sixtus  V.  made  an  edition  of  the  Latin  text  of  the  New 
Testament,  published  in  the  year  1590,  and  declared  his  edition 
to  be  the  Vulgate  to  which  the  decree  of  the  Council  of  Trent 
had  pointed,  and  that  it  "must  be  received  and  held  as  true, 
legitimate,  authentic,  and  undoubted,  in  all  public  and  private 
disputations,  lectures,  sermons,  and  explanations."  Unfortunately, 
it  was  at  once  discovered  that  Sixtus's  edition  was  extraordinarily 
bad,  and  must  be  as  far  as  that  was  possible  suppressed  and 
replaced  by  another.     It  was  Bellarmin  who  suggested  the  "pious 


TRANSLATIONS— LATIN  413 

fraud"  that  they  should  recall  the  volumes  and  correct  and 
re-issue  them  as  if  the  deceased  Sixtus  had  ordered  it.  It  is 
a  curious  combination  of  laxity  and  severity  when  we  perceive 
that,  on  the  one  hand,  this  fraud  was  carried  out,  and  that,  on 
the  other  hand,  poor  Bellarmin  was  refused  canonisation  as  a 
saint  because  he  had  suggested  the  trick.  The  new  edition 
appeared  in  the  year  1592  under  Clement  viii.,  and  is  called 
the  Clementine  Vulgate.  It  was  far  better  than  the  bad  edition 
of  Sixtus  v.,  but  was  not  so  carefully  revised  as  it  should 
have  been.  It  is  singular  that  the  great  Roman  Catholic  Church, 
with  its  large  number  of  talented  and  immensely  learned  scholars, 
with  the  vast  libraries  at  its  command,  with  means  unlimited  for 
any  necessary  work,  should  in  the  three  centuries  that  have 
passed  by  since  the  issue  of  the  Clementine  edition  not  have 
made  a  good  edition  of  the  Latin  text.  We  now  have  a  good 
edition  of  the  Gospels  and  of  the  Acts  which  we  owe  to  thirty 
years  of  work  on  the  part  of  John  Wordsworth,  the  bishop  of 
Salisbury,  and  his  friends,  especially  William  Sanday  and  Henry 
Julian  White,  and  may  heaven  give  him  and  them  years  and 
strength  to  bring  it  to  a  happy  completion. 


Vulgate  Manuscripts. 

The  great  manuscript  of  the  Vulgate  is  the  one  named  after 
Amiata,  w^here  it  used  to  be.  The  sign  for  it  is  am^  because 
the  Vulgate  manuscripts  are  often  designated  by  a  syllable  to 
distinguish  them  from  the  Old-Latin  manuscripts  that  only  have 
a  letter.  But  this  fine  volume,  now  the  pride  of  the  Laurentiana 
at  Florence,  is  English  work.  It  was  written  shortly  before  the 
year  716  at  the  order  of  Ceolfrid,  the  abbot  of  Yarrow,  who 
intended  to  carry  it  as  a  gift  to  Rome.  He  died  at  Langres 
on  the  way  on  the  25  th  of  September  716,  and  his 
companions  probably  took  the  volume  to  Rome.  The  text  of 
this  Codex  Amiatinus  is  excellent,  and  contains,  as  is  easily 
explicable,  many  Anglo-Saxon  and  Irish  readings. — The  La  Cava 
manuscript,  marked  cav^  was  written  by  a  scribe  Danila  in  the 
ninth  century,  and  is  in  the  Trinity  monastery  of  the  learned 
Benedictines  in  La  Cava,  near  Corpo  di  Cava,  not  far  from  Naples. 
Its  text  reminds  us  of  the    Speculum    mentioned  above,  for   it 


414  THE  TEXT 

has,  indeed,  the  Vulgate  text,  but  in  combination  with  Spanish 
readings. — The  Royal  Library  at  Munich  contains  a  manuscript 
of  the  year  870,  the  Codex  of  St.  Emmeram,  as  it  is  named, 
em^  from  the  monastery  to  which  the  Emperor  Arnulf  gave 
it.  It  was  written  in  gold  by  Berengar  and  Liuthard  at  the 
order  of  Charles  the  Bald.  It  is  ornamented  with  beautiful 
pictures. 

In  the  library  at  Fulda,  between  Eisenach  and  Frankfurt-on- 
the-Main,  is  the  Codex  Fuldensis,  fuld,  which  contains  the  whole 
New  Testament,  but  has  the  four  Gospels  in  a  harmony  that 
is  often  found  in  different  languages.  It  has  a  good  text.  This 
book  was  written  about  the  year  540,  at  the  wish  of  Victor 
of  Capua. — The  manuscript  gat  has  had  a  varied  history,  though 
now  resting  quietly  in  the  National  Library  at  Paris.  It  was 
written  by  an  Irishman,  and  was  once  in  St.  Gatiens  de  Tours. 
The  book-thief  Libri  stole  it  and  sold  it  to  Lord  Ashburnham. 
Now  it  is  once  more  in  France. — In  the  British  Museum  is  the 
manuscript  harl^  or  Harleianus,  of  the  sixth  century,  with  a  very 
good  text.  Apparently  it  was  stolen  by  Jean  Aymon  from  the 
library  at  Paris  in  the  year  1707,  and  sold  to  Robert  Harley. — 
Very  properly  we  find  at  Madrid,  in  the  National  Library,  a 
manuscript  of  the  eighth  century,  tol^  that  used  to  be  in  Toledo, 
and  that  gives  us  the  Vulgate  text  mingled  with  Spanish 
readings. — There  is  also  a  harl^  or  Harley  manuscript,  for  the 
book  of  Acts,  which  is  of  the  ninth  century,  and  which  like  the 
one  of  the  Gospels  just  mentioned  appeared  to  have  found  its 
way  in  1707  under  Jean  Aymon's  auspices  to  Robert  Harley 
and  thus  finally  to  the  British  Museum.  But  this  manuscript 
seems  to  be  of  the  Old  Latin  and  not  of  the  Vulgate  form,  so 
that  it  belongs  in  the  foregoing  list,  not  here. 

We  now  turn  to  some  manuscripts  that  have  a  passing  Arabic 
number. — Number  5  belongs  to  Thomas  Irwin  in  Oswego,  New 
York,  and  is  on  purple  parchment  in  golden  writing.  It  seems  to 
have  been  written  in  the  eighth  century. — Number  95  is  in  the 
University  Library  at  Cambridge,  England,  and  is  of  the  eighth 
or  ninth  century,  with  an  emendated  Irish  text.  It  is  called  the 
Book  of  Deer,  because  it  used  to  *be  in  the  monastery  of  Deer 
or  Deir  in  Aberdeenshire. — The  same  library  contains  my 
number  102a  of  the  eighth  century,  which  offers  the  passion 
and  the  resurrection  from  the  four  Gospels.     It  appears  to  have 


TRANSLATIONS— LATIN  415 

been  written  for  Ethel wald,  the  bishop  of  Lindisfarne. — Durham 
cathedral  owns  a  mutilated  copy  of  the  Gospels  and  eleven  leaves 
of  another,  both  of  the  eighth  century  and  with  a  good  text; 
in  the  list  they  are  115  and  116. — Another  mutilated  copy  of 
the  Gospels,  131,  of  the  eighth  or  ninth  century,  belongs  to 
Hereford  cathedral.  It  is  of  the  emendated  Irish  text. — The 
Book  of  Chad,  137,  is  the  property  of  Lichfield  cathedral,  is 
of  the  seventh  or  eighth  century,  and  contains  the  emendated 
Irish  text  of  Matthew,  Mark,  and  the  beginning  of  Luke. — The 
Lindisfarne,  or  St.  Cuthbert's  gospels,  153,  of  the  eighth 
century  are  in  the  British  Museum.  They  are  written  in  an 
Anglo-Saxon  script,  and  contain  between  the  lines  a  series  of 
Northumbrian  glosses. 

The  Coronation  Book,  156,  of  the  tenth  century,  in  the  British 
Museum,  has  many  old  readings  in  it. — The  same  library  owns  my 
number  184,  of  the  eighth  or  ninth  century,  written  in  gold,  and 
having  a  good  text, — 185,  of  the  ninth  century,  with  a  good  text, 
— 186,  of  the  ninth  or  tenth  century,  in  red  writing  with  a  late  text, 
— 187,  of  the  ninth  century,  in  gold  script  also  with  a  late  text, — 
234,  of  the  eighth  century,  with  a  fine  text,  of  the  British  family, — 
238,  of  the  ninth  century,  Wordsworth's  Beneventanus  with  a  good 
text, — 239,  of  the  tenth  century,  with  some  peculiar  readings, 
from  St.  Petrocius  in  Bodmin  in  Cornwall  among  the  Celts, — 240, 
of  the  ninth  century,  with  Alcuin's  text,  called  Charlemagne's 
Bible,  from  the  monastery  Moutier-Grand-Val,  near  Basel, — 
241,  of  the  ninth  century,  well  written  and  corrected,  formerly 
in  the  possession  of  St.  Cornelius  of  Compiegne, — and  254, 
of  the  ninth  century,  from  St.  Hubert,  near  Liege,  containing 
parts  of  the  Old  Testament,  the  Gospel,  the  Epistles  of  Paul, 
James,  and  i  Peter  1I-43.— The  Gospels  of  Mac  Regol, 
502,  are  in  the  Bodleian  at  Oxford.  They  are  of  the  ninth 
century,  and  give  the  emendated  Irish  text  with  the  series  of 
Northumbrian  glosses  between  the  lines. — Stonyhurst  owns  my 
number  523,  the  Gospel  of  John  of  the  seventh  century  that 
was  found  in  the  year  1105  in  the  grave  of  St.  Cuthbert.  Its 
text  is  very  good. — The  imperial  treasure-room  at  Vienna  has 
my  number  698,  which  used  to  be  at  Aachen  (Aix-la-Chapelle), 
and  which  is  called  the  Gospels  of  the  Oath  or  the  Gospels 
of  Charlemagne.  It  is  on  purple  parchment  and  is  written  in 
gold. — Similarly    the    City    Library    in    Abbeville    possesses    a 


4l6  THE  TEXT 

manuscript  of  the  eighth  century,  my  774,  written  on  puiple 
parchment  in  gold  script. 

At  Tours  is  number  913,  of  the  ninth  century  in  gold  script. 
Formerly  in  St.  Martin  at  Tours,  it  was  the  copy  of  the 
Gospels  upon  which  the  French  kings  from  Louis  vii.  in  the 
year  1137  ^0  Louis  xiv.  in  1650  took  their  oath  when  they 
were  first  received  as  abbots  or  canons  of  that  church. — The 
National  Library  at  Paris  owns  my  number  1265,  St.  Medard's 
Gospels  of  the  eighth  century  written  in  gold  script,  and  Theo- 
dulfs  Bible  of  the  ninth  century,  my  number  1266,  on  purple 
parchment  in  gold  script, — and  1267,  of  the  eighth  century, 
on  purple  parchment, — and  1269,  of  the  eighth  century,  the 
Echternach  Gospels,  —  and  1274,  of  the  ninth  century,  the 
Corbey  Bible, — and  1278,  of  the  eighth  century,  on  purple 
parchment  in  gold  script, — and  1285,  of  the  ninth  century,  the 
Gospels  of  Adalbald. — The  City  Library  of  Rheims  has  my 
number  1289,  of  the  ninth  century,  a  Bible  which  Hincmar 
presented  to  the  cathedral  there. — Number  1419,  of  the  ninth 
or  tenth  century,  in  the  Royal  Library  at  Berlin,  is  the  Codex 
Witekind. — The  University  Library  at  Wiirzburg  possesses  seven 
fine  manuscripts  formerly  in  the  cathedral  there.  My  number 
1606  is  a  Matthew  of  the  eighth  century, — 1607  is  a  copy  of  the 
Gospels  of  the  eighth  century, — 1608  is  also  a  copy  of  the  Gospels 
of  the  eighth  century, — 1609  offers  Gospels  from  the  end  of  the 
seventh  century, — 16 10,  of  the  sixth  century,  is  supposed  to  have 
belonged  to  St.  Burkard  of  Wiirzburg ;  it  contains  the  Gospels, — 
161 1  is  a  copy  of  the  Gospels  of  the  ninth  century, — and  161 2, 
the  Gospels  of  the  sixth  century,  is  reputed  to  have  belonged  to 
St.  Kilian  the  apostle  of  the  Franks. — Quedlinburg  owns  my 
number  1859,  the  Gospels  in  gold  script  in  uncial  letters  of  the 
eighth  century,  possibly  from  the  year  740. 

The  City  Library  at  Trier  owns  the  Ada  Codex  of  the  eighth 
century,  my  1877,  written  in  gold  script,  and  having  pictures  that 
are  important  for  the  history  of  art. — In  Trinity  College  at  Dublin 
is  the  Book  of  Armagh,  my  1968,  written  in  the  year  812,  contain- 
ing the  New  Testament  in  the  emendated  Irish  text. — An  eighth 
century  copy  of  the  Gospels,  my  1969,  named  Domhnach  Airgid, 
is  in  the  Royal  Irish  Academy  at  Dublin. — My  1970  is  in  Trinity 
College  there,  and  is  a  copy  of  the  Gospels  of  the  eighth  century. 
— My  197 1  is  also  in  Trinity  College.     It  is  of  the  ninth  century, 


TRANSLATIONS— GOTHIC  417 

and  is  called  the  Book  of  Moling  or  Mulling.  This  and  1968 
are  two  of  the  most  important  Irish  manuscripts. —  My  1972, 
in  the  same  library,  the  Gospels  of  the  seventh  or  eighth  century, 
is  called  the  Book  of  Kells. — Similarly  1973,  at  the  same  place, 
the  Gospels  of  the  eighth  century,  is  called  the  Book  of  Durrow. — 
And  1974,  also  there,  of  the  ninth  century,  the  Gospels,  is  called 
the  Book  of  Dimma.  These  fantastic  old  names  seem  to  carry 
us  back  to  the  days  of  the  elves  and  fairies  among  the  oaks 
of  the  Druids. — Number  2138,  a  Bible  of  the  ninth  century, 
is  at  Rome,  in  St.  Paul  Outside  the  Walls.  It  was  used  by  the 
scholars  who  corrected  the  text  of  the  Vulgate  at  the  desire 
of  Pius  IV. — Number  2225  is  in  the  Royal  Library  at  Stockholm, 
and  is  of  the  sixth  or  seventh  century,  partly  on  purple  parchment 
in  gold  script.  The  Gospels  in  it  appear  to  be  of  a  Vulgate  type, 
but  to  have  been  corrected  according  to  an  Old-Latin  text.  It 
is  likely  that  this  book  was  written  by  Irishmen  in  Italy.  King 
Alfred  gave  it  to  the  Cathedral  at  Canterbury.  The  Swedish 
scholar  John  Gabriel  Sparwenfeldt  bought  it  in  Spain  in  1690 
and  gave  it  to  the  library  at  Stockholm. — In  Prague,  in  the  Stift 
Strahov,  is  a  copy  of  the  Gospels  of  the  ninth  century  which  used 
to  belong  to  St.  Martin's  on  the  Mosel.  Herewith  we  leave  the 
Latin  translation  of  the  New  Testament. 


Gothic  Translation. 

The  Gothic  translation  is  due  to  the  Bishop  Wulfila,  who  was 
born  about  the  year  310  and  died  about  380.  In  translating 
the  greater  part  gf  the  Bible  about  the  middle  of  the  fourth 
century,  he  seems  to  have  used  for  the  New  Testament  a  Greek 
text  which  was  largely  of  a  later  type,  and  which  nevertheless 
contained  many  old  readings.  Some  scholars,  urging  that  the 
text  of  the  Gothic  was  much  like  the  Latin  text  in  certain  readings 
and  interpolations,  and  laying  stress  on  the  fact  that  the  four 
Gospels  stood  in  the  Western  order :  Matthew,  John,  Luke,  Mark, 
came  to  the  conclusion  that  this  translation  of  Wulfila's  was 
revised  in  the  fifth  century  or  later,  while  the  Goths  were  in  Italy 
and  Spain,  and  that  not  after  a  Greek  text  of  the  New  Testament, 
but  after  the  Italian  form  of  the  Old-Latin  translation.  It  must 
be  conceded  that  such  a  thing  would  be  conceivable.  Yet  the 
27 


41 8  THE  TEXT 

circumstances  do  not  call  for  a  supposition  of  this  kind.  The 
similarity  of  text  could  be  due  to  the  Greek  manuscripts  used  by 
Wulfila  and  his  correctors.  And,  moreover,  the  chapters  and  the 
lessons  in  one  of  the  Gothic  manuscripts  agree  with  those  of 
Euthalius.  All  our  discussions  about  this  translation  suffer  from 
the  fact  that  we  have  but  little  of  it  to  judge  by.  There  is  a 
fragmentary  manuscript  of  the  four  Gospels,  and  there  are  a  few- 
further  fragments  of  the  Gospels  with  fragments  of  the  Epistles  of 
Paul.  Thus  far  we  have  found  no  manuscripts  of  the  Acts,  of 
the  Catholic  Epistles,  or  of  Revelation.  The  one  larger  manu- 
script is  the  Codex  Argenteus,  of  the  sixth  century,  in  the 
University  Library  at  Upsala,  on  purple  parchment  in  silver  letters. 
It  may  have  been  written  in  Northern  Italy.  In  the  sixteenth 
century  it  was  in  the  monastery  VVerden  in  Westphalia,  and  at  the 
close  of  that  century  at  Prague.  In  1648  it  travelled  to  Stock- 
holm as  booty  of  war.  Perhaps  it  was  given  to  Isaac  Voss,  the 
librarian  of  Queen  Christina,  for  it  was  at  Voss'  in  Holland  in 
1655.  In  1662,  Count  Magnus  Gabriele  de  la  Gardie  bought  it 
and  gave  it  to  the  University  at  Upsala.  It  was  well  travelled. 
The  remaining  fragments  in  Milan,  Rome,  Turin,  and  Wolfenbiittel 
are  all  palimpsest,  and  all  of  the  sixth  century. 


Slavic  Translation. 

The  Slavic  translation  is  usually  attributed  to  a  Thessalonian 
named  Constantin,  but  renamed  Cyrill,  who  was  called  by  Rastislav, 
the  Duke  of  Moravia,  in  the  year  862  to  come  and  preach  the 
gospel  in  his  domains.  Cyrill  and  his  brother  Methodius  went 
thither,  made  a  Slavic  alphabet  drawn  chiefly  from  the  Greek 
alphabet,  and  translated  the  New  Testament  into  Slavic.  Per- 
haps they  translated  merely  the  Church  lessons,  therefore 
omitting  the  Revelation.  The  Greek  manuscripts  which  they 
used  were  apparently  chiefly  of  a  later  type.  There  are  a  great 
many  Slavic  manuscripts  in  Russia,  and  we  certainly  shall  some 
day  have  from  a  Russian  scholar  a  grand  catalogue  of  them  all 
as  a  basis  for  critical  work  upon  them. 


419 


VII. 

CHURCH   WRITERS, 

It  might  seem  to  a  person  approaching  this  field  for  the  first 
time  that  the  witnesses  to  the  ancient  condition  of  the  text  were 
now  exhausted.  We  have  called  up  the  array  of  the  Greek  copies 
of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  we  have  seen  the  full  ranks 
of  the  volumes  containing  the  lessons  to  be  read  in  the  Greek 
Church,  and  we  have  just  left  the  great  corps  of  the  translations 
of  the  sacred  text.  That  must  be  all.  It  is  certainly  a  great  deal, 
but  it  is  not  all.  Nor  may  we  stop  short  of  all.  Were  we 
concerned  with  the  text  of  Shakespeare  or  Dante  or  Goethe  it 
might  be  pardonable  to  pass  by  some  less  direct  evidences  of  their 
utterances  or  sentences.  In  the  case  of  the  New  Testament  it 
would  be  a  crime  to  fail  to  approach  the  last  witness,  to  omit  the 
last  question  that  could  be  put,  in  order  to  gain  a  ray  of  light  upon 
its  history,  in  order  to  solve  a  problem  touching  the  form  of  its 
original  text. 

In  the  case  of  the  witnesses  thus  far  called  upon  the  stand, 
the  clerical  character  of  their  testimony  prevailed,  and  especially 
the  liturgical  character.  For  although  many  a  book  was  in  old 
times  written  for  private  possession  and  use,  nevertheless  a  large 
number  of  the  manuscripts  in  all  the  series  that  we  have  scanned 
up  to  this  point  were  directly  written  for  use  in  the  churches. 
Many  even  of  the  volumes  written  at  private  order,  at  the  order 
of  laymen  or  of  laywomen,  were  ordered  solely  for  the  purpose  of 
being  given  to  a  cathedral,  to  a  monastery,  or  to  the  church  of 
the  choice  of  the  one  ordering  the  work.  All  of  the  books  had 
but  one  aim,  and  this  aim  was  the  text  of  the  New  Testament' 
itself. 

In  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  we  find  that  reference  is 
made  to  previous  works,  and  above  all  to  the  Old  Testament. 
We  are  able  to  see  from  these  references  what  the  state  of  the 
text  of  the  Old  Testament  then  was.  In  Luke  ii^^  Jesus  says  : 
"  On  this  account  also  the  wisdom  of  God  said :  I  will  send  to 


420  THE   TEXT 

them  prophets  and  apostles,  and  some  of  them  they  will  slay  and 
will  persecute :  in  order  that  the  blood  of  all  the  prophets,  that 
was  shed  from  the  foundation  of  the  world,  from  the  blood  of 
Abel  unto  the  blood  of  Zachariah,  who  was  slain  between  the  altar 
of  burnt-offering  and  the  temple,  should  be  demanded  from  this 
generation."  Whence  this  quotation  came,  we  do  not  in  the 
least  know.  It  appears  to  be  from  some  apocryphal  book.  In 
Acts  20^^  Paul  says  to  the  elders  of  Ephesus  who  had  met  him 
at  Miletus :  "  And  remember  the  words  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  that 
He  said :  It  is  more  blessed  to  give  than  to  receive."  We  do  not 
know  whence  Paul  drew  these  words.  That  is  to  say,  we  have 
no  clue  to  the  line  of  oral,  word  of  mouth,  tradition  which 
supplied  them  to  Paul,  and  no  clue  to  the  connection  of  that 
unknown  line  of  tradition  with  the  written  accounts  in  our 
Gospels.  And  Jude  ^'^  writes:  "And  ye,  beloved,  remember 
the  words  which  were  spoken  before  by  the  apostles  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  that  they  said  to  you  :  At  the  end  of  the  age  there 
shall  be  scoffers  walking  in  the  way  of  ungodliness  according  to 
their  own  lusts."  To  what  passage  he  refers,  or  whether  he 
refers  to  any  definite  single  passage,  is  not  known.  The  author 
of  the  late  letter,  Second  Peter,  quotes  this  all,  2  Pet.  3-'^,  as  if  it 
were  his  own,  but  reinforcing  and  paraphrasing  it  or  spreading 
it  out. 

As  Jesus  quoted,  as  the  aposdes  quoted  from  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, as  Paul  quoted  Jesus,  and  as  Jude  quoted  we  know  not 
whom,  so  also  the  Christians  who  wrote  letters  and  treatises 
of  Christian  contents  quoted  Jesus  and  the  apostles  and  the 
non-apostolic  writers  of  New  Testament  books.  Their  quotations, 
then,  may  sometimes  be  of  use  to  us  in  our  attempt  to  determine 
the  original  words  of  the  text  of  these  books.  Their  use  of  these 
books  forms  for  us  the  last  source  of  testimony  to  the  text  we  are 
seeking.  When  we  turned  to  the  translations,  I  emphasised  the 
fact  that  those  translations  gave  us  a  certain  localisation  of  the 
readings  which  they  contained,  and  thereby  helped  determine 
in  the  most  certain  manner  the  spread  of  given  forms  of  text  in 
early  times.  It  will  be  at  once  apparent  that  Christian  writers 
who  quote  the  words  of  the  New  Testament  must  in  like  manner 
localise  readings,  give  a  definite  knowledge  of  the  presence  of 
given  readings  in  certain  places. 

It  is,  of  course,   necessary  to  keep  in   mind  the   fact  that 


CHURCH   WRITERS  42  I 

writers  sometimes  journeyed  afar,  that  Irengeus  was  of  Smyrna, 
but  also  of  Lyons,  and  visited  Rome;  that  Origen  was  of 
Alexandria,  but  that  he  visited  Rome  and  Arabia,  and  that  he 
lived  long  at  Caesarea ;  that  Gregory  of  Nazianzus  was  of  Asia 
Minor,  but  visited  Athens,  and  Alexandria,  and  Caesarea,  and 
Constantinople ;  that  Jerome  came  from  Dalmatia,  but  visited 
Rome,  and  Gaul,  and  Alexandria,  and  Antioch,  and  Con- 
stantinople, and  spent  the  last  thirty  and  more  years  of  his  life 
at  Bethlehem.  But  it  does  not  follow  that  a  man  changed  his 
text  because  he  changed  his  residence.  It  would  probably  be 
nearer  the  truth  to  place  the  word  text  for  mind  in  Horace's 
verse.  When  a  man  had  been  brought  up  on  a  given  form  of  the 
New  Testament,  he  was  likely,  other  things  being  equal,  to  stick 
to  it.  Had  he  the  means  to  make  a  journey,  he  had  doubdess 
also  the  means  to  buy  a  copy  of  the  New  Testament  suited  to 
travel  with  him.  Of  course  he  may  have  been  persuaded  tc 
accept  a  new  reading  on  due  evidence  in  place  of  an  old  one, 
but  his  general  text  is  likely  to  have  remained  the  old-accustomed 
text.  And  whatever  he  accepted,  so  was  that  reading,  if  he 
returned  and  lived  again  in  his  early  home,  a  reading  that  also 
was  found  at  that  place,  and,  if  he  was  a  man  of  weight,  a  reading 
that  may  have  come  to  prevail  there. 

The  reading,  the  cast  of  text  that  is  found  in  a  Church  writer 
has,  however,  in  one  respect  a  great  advantage  over  the  reading 
found  in  a  translation,  namely,  that  it  is  by  its  connection  with 
the  author  in  most  cases  definitely  dated  as  well  as  placed. 
That  is  very  important.  It  is  true  that  there  are  drawbacks 
that  lessen  the  value  of  the  testimony,  or  we  may  say  lessen 
the  amount  of  testimony  that  we  can  get  from  the  Church  writers. 
One  of  these  drawbacks  became  very  apparent  during  the  dis- 
cussion of  the  criticism  of  the  canon,  namely,  the  loose  way  in 
which  these  writers  like  other  writers  often  quote.  In  spite  of 
this  difficulty  we  may  gain  much  even  from  such  writers,  even 
from  writers  who  quote  in  a  free  way,  and  it  need  not  be  said 
that  there  are  writers  who  often  quote  carefully.  Yet  even  a 
carelessly  presented  sentence  may  assure  us  of  the  presence 
of  one  or  another  important  element  in  the  readings  that  the 
passage  offers  in  various  witnesses,  and  be  enough  to  fix  a  date 
and  place  for  it.  The  very  point  that  the  author  using  it  is 
trying  to  make,  may  decide  the  form  of  the  text  to  which  he  is 


4J2  THK   TKXT 

accustomed.  Another  drawback  is  to  be  found  at  times  in  the. 
silence  of  an  author.  We  observed  in  the  criticism  of  the  canon 
that  it  would  not  do  to  lay  all  too  great  stress  upon  the  silence  in 
reference  to  a  questioned  fact.  We  saw  that  it  was  more  than 
once,  humanly  speaking,  only  the  merest  chance  that  a  passing 
sentence  occasioned  by  the  most  trifling  circumstance  gave  us  a 
view  of  the  opinion  of  the  writer  touching  the  mooted  point. 

In  one  way  these  Church  writers  can  be  of  use  to  us  even  in  re- 
spect to  passages  which  they  do  not  directly  quote.  We  can  apply 
their  testimony  indirectly.  In  dealing  with  the  witnesses  to  the 
text  it  is  often  of  great  weight  to  determine  the  habits  of  a  given 
witness,  whether  that  witness  be  a  Greek  manuscript  or  a  manu- 
script of  a  translation,  or  even  a  Church  writer.  If  we  know  the 
habits,  the  inclinations,  the  virtues,  and  the  faults  of  a  witness, 
we  are  in  a  position  to  understand,  to  determine  the  value  of, 
and  to  apply  its  testimony  in  a  much  more  certain  and  more 
effectual  and  more  just  way,  than  if  we  merely  consider  its 
testimony  for  each  single  passage  in  isolation  from  its  further 
testimony.  Now  a  Church  writer  may  by  his  whole  series  of 
quotations  establish  in  a  comparatively  definite  manner  and  to  a 
very  great  extent  the  character  of  a  witness  of  another  class. 
'J'here  are  even  cases  in  which  it  seems  almost  as  if,  for  example, 
a  given  manuscript  in  our  hands  had  been  the  volume  from  which 
the  writer  concerned  had  copied  out  his  quotations.  The  con- 
clusion at  which  we  are  aiming  is  then  clear.  By  enabling  us  to 
determine  the  relations  of  the  text  of  that  other  witness,  to  be 
sure  of  its  speaking  for  a  certain  time  and  place,  whatever  other 
times  and  places  it  may  represent,  the  writer  has  given  us  a 
criterion  for  the  decision  as  to  all  readings  which  that  witness 
offers,  even  though  he  himself  may  not  have  quoted  them. 

Hy  themselves,  without  Greek  manuscripts  and  without  trans- 
lations, the  Church  writers  cannot  decide  that  a  reading  is  genuine. 
They  are  too  late  and  too  uncertain  for  that.  We  might  say  that 
they  could  under  the  best  of  circumstances,  if  all  other  witnesses 
were  lacking,  only  serve  to  bolster  up  a  conjecture.  The  case  of 
the  book  of  Revelation  is  peculiar,  and  is  by  no  means  clear  to 
us.  We  have  already  perceived  that  a  large  number  of  the 
manuscripts  which  contain  that  book,  contain  it  in  combination 
with  the  commentary  of  Andrew  of  Caisarea  or  of  Arethas  of 
Ca^sarea.     It  would  be  conceivable  that  a  man  copy  some  text 


CHURCH   WRITERS  423 

of  the  Revelation  that  pleased  him,  and  add  to  it  one  of  those 
commentaries  in  spite  of  their  being  written  in  connection  with 
another  form  of  the  text.  That  would  be  possible,  but  only 
baiely  possible  and  not  in  the  least  likely.  Moreover,  if  I  am 
right  in  thinking  at  this  moment  that  the  greater  number  of  these 
commentated  texts  of  Revelation  have  the  text  and  commentary 
intimately  combined  in  irregularly  measured  sentences,  but  such 
as  follow  closely  upon  one  another  without  appreciable  break, 
then  it  is  all  the  less  probable  that  scribes  or  scholars  joined  the 
commentary  to  their  own  peculiar  texts.  Therefore  these 
manuscripts  should,  as  a  rule,  offer  to  us  the  text  or  the  texts 
approved  by  those  two  writers. 

When  I  was  a  student  of  theology  over  forty  years  ago,  I 
spent  two  years  with  great  profit  in  the  theological  seminary  of  a 
Church,  not  my  own,  in  which  a  warm  discussion  was  being 
carried  on  as  to  the  use  of  hymns  and  as  to  the  use  of  organs. 
During  the  course  of  the  debate  in  the  journal  of  the  Church,  the 
more  progressive  members  who  were  for  greater  freedom  appealed 
to  the  testimony  of  the  Israelitic  scholars  who  were  accessible, 
appealed  to  their  testimony  as  to  certain  facts  connected  with  the 
Jewish  interpretation  of  some  passages  of  the  Old  Testament 
which  had  been  brought  into  evidence.  In  the  next  lecture  after 
the  appearance  of  the  article  containing  the  appeal  to  the 
testimony  of  these  scholars,  the  professor  who  led  the  opposition 
referred  to  the  matter,  and  said  among  other  things  as  a  final  and 
unanswerable  rebuttal  of  that  testimony :  "  The  Jews  crucified 
Christ,  and  therefore  the  Jews  will  lie."  That  was  indeed  an 
unanswerable  argument,  or  an  argument  that  needed  no  answer. 
The  point  of  the  story  for  the  criticism  of  the  text  of  the  New 
Testament  lies  in  the  distinction  between  opinion  and  fact,  in  the 
necessity  of  accepting  gladly  all  testimony  to  facts  of  textual 
history,  without  the  least  respect  to  the  theological  opinions 
which  the  witness  cherishes.  Whether  a  Marcionite  or  a 
Montanist  or  an  Arian  or  a  Pelagian  sees  and  chronicles  a 
reading,  or  whether  Tertullian,  who  here  rides  two  horses,  or 
Epiphanius,  or  Athanasius,  or  Augustine,  uses  it,  is  as  to  the 
point  of  the  existence  of  the  reading  at  the  given  times  and 
places  totally  indifferent. 

The  facts  are  what  we  are  after,  not  the  theology  of  a 
witness.     Indeed   it  has   happened,  and  not   merely  once,  that 


424  THE  TEXT 

heretics,  that  men  who  have  dared  to  think  differently  from 
the  leaders  of  the  Church,  have  been  accused  of  tampering 
with  the  text  and  of  having  used  spurious  readings;  and  yet 
that  we  can  see,  not  only  that  they  had  not  in  the  given  cases 
tampered  with  the  text,  but  that  they,  in  fact,  had  really  had  the 
right  reading,  and  their  churchly  accusers  the  wrong  one.  The 
testimony  that  we  draw  in  such  a  case  from  one  side  is  just 
as  good,  just  as  valuable  scientifically,  as  that  which  we  draw 
from  the  other.  What  the  men  had  before  their  eyes  were  the 
hard  facts.  I  need  scarcely  add  that  the  fact  that  the  heretics 
have  sometimes  had  the  good  readings  is  not  in  general  to  be 
attributed  to  a  higher  or  better  or  more  critical  insight  on  their 
part  into  the  then  so  little  known  intricacies  of  textual  tradition 
and  of  the  way  in  which  to  unravel  them.  They  had  the  better 
readings,  because  in  the  given  cases  they  had  received  in  the 
course  of  their  theological  and  ecclesiastical  training  and  life  the 
better  manuscripts.  They  had  not  chosen  them,  but  merely 
received  them  in  the  current  of  tradition  that  struck  their  shore. 

The  Greek  manuscripts  of  the  text  of  the  New  Testament 
were  often  altered  by  scribes,  who  put  into  them  the  readings 
which  were  familiar  to  them,  and  which  they  held  to  be  the  right 
readings.  In  a  similar  manner,  words  from  the  New  Testament, 
which  a  Church  writer  has  used  in  his  works,  have  been  modified 
by  scribes  and  made  to  agree  with  the  text  in  the  hand  of  the 
copyists.  It  is  sometimes  possible  to  detect  the  fraud  by  the 
fact  that  the  surroundings  of  the  quotation  which  has  been 
corrupted  show  it  to  be  false.  The  commentary,  if  it  stands  in 
a  commentary,  may  treat  of  totally  different  words  from  the  ones 
now  put  before  our  eyes.  And  if  it  be  a  treatise  of  some  kind, 
the  application  of  the  words  may  depend  upon  a  thought  not 
found  in  the  spurious  sentence.  These  reflections  lead  us  to  the 
whole  question  of  the  way  in  which  the  works  of  the  Church 
writers  have  been  handed  down  to  us.  It  is  not  to  be  forgotten 
that  they,  like  the  translations,  are  also  so  many  needy  beggars  for 
a  special  application  of  criticism  to  their  writings.  They  stretch 
out  their  hands  across  the  centuries  to  Christian  scholars  of 
the  twentieth  century  and  entreat  them  to  free  them  from  the 
corruption  and  dross  that  spoil  their  works.  We  cannot  properly, 
that  is  to  say,  with  definite  and  final  certainty,  apply  their 
testimony  to  the  criticism  of  the  text  until  we  have  accurate 


CHURCH   WRITERS— TATIAN,  IREN^US  425 

scientific  editions  of  them.  Yet  it  is  impossible  to  stand  and 
wait  until  that  great  task  is  done.  The  New  Testament  must  be 
furthered  as  well  as  the  present  circumstances  admit.  The 
future  will  stand  upon  our  shoulders,  will  see  further  into  the 
past,  then  men  will  have  new  witnesses,  and  will  have  better 
editions  of  the  witnesses  than  we  have.  All  such  tasks  intercalate. 
The  work  of  bettering  the  text  of  the  Church  writers  is  rendered 
more  easy  by  every  step  gained  in  the  understanding  of  the 
connections  and  relations  of  the  various  readings  of  the  text  of 
the  New  Testament.  No  scholar  should  pretend  to  approach 
the  textual  work  upon  a  Church  writer  before  he  has  made 
himself  thoroughly  acquainted  with  the  problems  in  the  criticism 
of  the  text  of  the  New  Testament,  seeing  that  they  may  often 
afford  him  valuable  aid  in  judging  of  the  manuscripts  of  the 
writer  whom  he  is  editing. 

The  very  earliest  of  the  Christian  writers  did  not  make  a 
point  of  quoting  the  New  Testament  with  any  precision.  The 
New  Testament  was  in  a  way  for  them  the  air  in  which  they 
lived.  They  breathed  it  in.  It  filled  their  hearts  and  their 
minds.  It  poured  forth  from  their  lips  and  their  pens.  What 
poured  forth  was  not  word  for  word  that  which  had  been 
breathed  into  their  nostrils,  sounded  into  their  ears,  devoured  by 
their  eyes,  and  digested  in  their  minds.  The  sense  was  there, 
not  the  form.  In  many  passages  we  see  the  New  Testament 
gold  glinting  among  their  sentences  like  the  particles  of  foil  that 
are  scattered  throughout  a  solution.  When  we  try  to  seize  a 
sentence  it  disperses,  it  vanishes  before  our  eyes.  The  moment 
we  read  again  we  see  it  return. 


Tatian,  Iren^us. 

One  book,  a  book  by  a  man  who  came  to  bear  the  title 
of  heretic,  a  book  which  certainly  did  valiant  service  in  its 
day  and  generation,  had  a  less  favourable  influence  upon  the 
text  of  the  first  part  of  the  New  Testament.  This  was  Tatian's 
Harmony  of  the  Four  Gospels,  the  book  called  "  Through  Four  " 
or  Diatessaron.  Four  Gospels  there  were,  but  these  four  when 
closely  regarded  resolved  themselves  into  two  Gospels,  the  first 
of  which  had  a  triple  form.     The  first  three  Gospels  are  to  such 


426  THE  TEXT 

a  high  degree  not  merely  connected  with  but  interwoven  with 
each  other,  that  their  texts  must  of  necessity  have  been  inclined 
from  the  first  moment  of  their  contemporaneous  existence  to 
run  together.  When,  then,  Tatian  proceeded  actually  to  weld 
their  particles  into  one  coherent  whole,  it  must  have  been 
next  to  impossible  to  prevent  readings  from  his  work  from 
passing  over  into  the  texts  of  the  single,  separate  Gospels. 
I  have  already  said  that  I  suppose  his  Harmony  to  have  been 
originally  Greek.  We  possess  it  to-day  unfortunately  neither 
in  Greek  nor  in  Syrian.  Wherever  it  appeared — it  also  passed 
over  into  Armenian  and  into  Arabic — it  must  have  exerted 
the  same  confusing  and  confounding  influence.  We  have,  when 
we  are  treating  the  tangled  verses  of  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke, 
to  ask  ourselves  whether  they  were  by  accident  or  of  set  purpose 
combined  by  scribes  who  simply  had  these  three  Gospels  in 
their  hands, — or  whether  the  disorder  has  proceeded  from  the 
circumstance  that  a  scribe  has  transferred  to  the  Gospels  them- 
selves phrases  which  he  found  ready  combined  on  the  pages  of 
the  Diatessaron. 

The  great  treatise  of  Irenasus  against  heretics  is  in  one 
respect  the  object  of  much  longing  on  the  part  of  the  critics 
of  the  text  of  the  New  Testament.  He  wrote  this  treatise  in 
Greek,  and  he  packed  it  full  of  quotations  from  the  New  Testa- 
ment. He  wrote,  it  is  true,  say  about  the  year  185,  yet  the 
manuscripts  that  he  used  must  needs  have  been  representa- 
tives of  a  much  older  text.  The  New  Testament  of  that  date 
would  stand  before  our  eyes  in  a  very  much  clearer  form  could 
we  exchange  our  Latin  translation  of  Irenaeus  for  his  original 
Greek  text.  May  it  soon  be  found.  Should  we  find  it,  it  will 
be  sure,  like  every  new  find,  to  answer  some  questions,  but 
also  to  put  a  number  of  new  questions.  One  asks  in  advance 
whether  we  should  expect  to  find  in  his  text  the  product 
of  Asia  Minor  or  of  Lyons.  I  think  that  Smyrna,  Asia  Minor, 
must  be  the  source  of  his  text.  It  does  not  seem  to  me  that 
the  raising  of  Greek  texts  is  to  be  supposed  to  have  been  a 
specialty  of  the  Christian  husbandmen  in  the  cities  of  Gaul. 
They  were  probably  in  this  respect  consumers  and  not  producers. 
They  were  heroes,  those  early  Christians  in  Vienne  and  Lyons, 
but  I  do  not  think  that  the  heathen  around  them  left  them  much 
time  for  textual  criticism. 


CHURCH  WRITERS  427 


Origen. 


Our  thoughts  about  Origen  are  not  so  very  different  from 
those  that  we  cherish  in  regard  to  the  treatise  of  Irenaeus. 
The  reason,  however,  that  the  translations  of  Origen's  works, 
which  in  many  cases  is  all  that  we  have  left  of  them,  are  less 
satisfactory,  is  that  his  translators,  and  in  particular  Rufinus, 
were  bent  upon  making  him  less  heretical  than  he  was.  Rufinus 
is  quite  frank  and  open  about  it,  and  it  was  undoubtedly,  I 
think,  a  matter  of  conscience  with  him,  but  it  renders  the  books 
much  less  valuable  for  the  purposes  of  textual  criticism.  A 
translator  who  confessedly  changes  the  commentary  wherever  his 
fancy  or  his  orthodoxy  leads  him  to  differ  from  Origen,  will,  of 
course,  not  stick  at  changing  the  text  from  Origen's  form  to  the 
form  that  he  himself  daily  used.  But  Origen  does  in  some 
passages  do  a  great  deal  for  the  textual  critic.  He  was  by  nature 
and  by  practice  an  exact  scholar  for  that  period.  His  textual 
researches  in  reference  to  the  Old  Testament  have  scarcely  a 
parallel  in  all  antiquity,  unless  it  be  in  the  work  of  the  school  at 
Antioch,  of  which  we,  however,  have  scarcely  any  mention 
except  in  Syrian  manuscripts. 

The  question  is  often  asked,  whether  he  did  not  also  treat 
the  text  of  the  New  Testament  critically.  That  he  treated 
many  a  reading  critically  is  not  to  be  doubted.  That  he 
systematically  revised  the  text  of  the  whole  New  Testament 
is  nowhere  reported.  His  commentaries  give,  nevertheless, 
many  a  note  about  readings,  and  occasionally  full  discussion 
of  them.  His  judgment  as  to  readings  is  nothing  or  next  to 
nothing  for  us.  His  facts  are  what  we  care  for.  When  he 
found  a  reading  in  a  number  of  manuscripts,  that  meant  some- 
thing, for  every  one  of  them  was  at  least  a  hundred  years  older 
than  the  Sinaitic  and  the  Vatican  manuscript.  The  fame  of 
Origen  in  all  parts  of  the  world,  the  number  of  Christian  theo- 
logians who  sat  at  his  feet,  must  have  tended  to  spread  his 
readings.  The  hypothesis  has  been  suggested,  that  some  pupil 
or  admirer  of  Origen  made  a  point  of  inserting  into  the  text  of 
the  New  Testament  the  readings  which  Origen  had  approved  in 
his  works.  This  would  have  been  possible.  We  have,  however, 
no  testimony  for  it. 


428  THE  TEXT 

As  the  years  advance  the  literature  ceases  to  be  so  frag- 
mentary as  it  had  been  in  the  second  and  third  and  early  fourth 
century.  The  Church  came  to  be  openly  acknowledged  and 
favoured.  Chrysostom,  the  golden  mouthed  orator,  born  and 
working  in  Antioch,  and  at  the  end  living  at  Constantinople  or 
in  exile,  exerted  a  wide  influence  as  a  preacher,  an  exegete,  and 
an  author.  His  writings  are  numerously  represented  in  the 
libraries  of  Greek  manuscripts,  whether  in  the  East  or  in  the 
West.  But  by  his  day  the  text  had  almost  completed  the  round 
of  its  fates,  so  that  he  cannot  open  for  us  the  door  to  its  secret 
history  in  the  earlier  periods. 

The  translations  of  the  New  Testament  into  various  languages 
were  found  to  be  of  much  use  for  the  criticism  of  the  text.  In 
like  manner  the  Church  writers  who  used  not  Greek  but  Syriac 
or  Armenian,  or  Coptic,  or  Latin,  find  a  place  in  these  studies. 
Their  testimony  applies  in  most  cases  first  of  all  to  the  trans- 
lation of  the  New  Testament  into  the  language  which  they  used, 
and  through  it  to  the  original  text.  Yet  a  learned  man  often 
used  for  his  studies  a  Greek  manuscript,  so  that  the  distance 
between  the  original  text  and  his  commentary  was  not  after  all 
very  great.  Thus  far  we  do  not  know  very  much  about  the 
works  of  the  ancient  Church  writers,  who  used  Syriac  or  Coptic 
or  Ethiopic.  It  is  clear  that  at  an  early  period  Antioch  paid 
great  attention  to  the  text,  and  wrote  books  of  the  most  exact 
critical  character,  collections  of  variations,  notes  as  to  corrections, 
and  we  may  say  in  general  a  critical  Masora  for  the  New  Testa- 
ment text.  Egypt  and  Ethiopia  must  still  give  us  much. 
Armenia  has  given  much  and  will  surely  give  more.  The 
Archimandrite  Karapet  has  just  published  an  unknown  book, 
a  book  till  then  known  only  as  a  title,  that  was  written  by 
Irenaeus.  Among  Latin  writers,  Tertullian  offers  much  for  the 
criticism  of  the  text.  There  is  one  curious  thing  about  him, 
about  his  relation  to  the  text.  Imagine  how  peculiar  it  is  that 
a  good  author,  a  man  of  great  intelligence,  of  high  educa- 
tion, and  of  at  least  some  travel,  should  transpose  two  petitions 
in  the  Lord's  Prayer.  Nor  is  the  transposition  a  mere  pass- 
ing change,  a  variation  that  might  be  attributed  to  a  scribe's 
or  to  Tertullian's  own  carelessness,  for  he  is  commenting  at 
length  upon  the  prayer.  Scarcely  less  strange  is  the  fact  that 
we  find  this  transposition  neither  in  other  writers  in  his  neigh- 


CHURCH   WRITERS  429 

bourhood  nor  anywhere  else.  Many  a  book  originally  written 
in  Greek  or  another  tongue  used  in  the  East,  is  only  preserved 
to  us  in  a  Latin  translation,  and  we  must  be  glad  that  we  have 
that  much  of  the  writings  in  question.  Each  such  translation 
demands,  then,  for  itself  a  critical  treatment  before  we  can  be 
sure  how  much  we  may  rely  upon  its  faithfulness  to  the  original, 
and  in  scripture  quotations  how  far  we  may  be  sure  that  the  trans- 
lator did  not  change  them  to  fit  his  own  accustomed  form  of  text. 
Julius  Africanus,  whose  name  seems  to  point  to  his  birth  in 
Africa,  presents  us  a  case  of  a  Christian  who  was  not  unknown 
to  the  heathen  authorities.  He  probably  lived  from  about 
170  to  240.  His  home  was  one  of  the  Palestinian  Emmaeus 
towns,  but  he  visited  Alexandria,  Rome,  and  Asia  Minor.  This 
town  Emmaeus,  about  thirty-five  kilometres  from  Jerusalem,  was 
rebuilt  by  him  under  the  auspices  of  Heliogabalus  (218-222), 
to  whom  he  went  on  an  embassy  asking  help,  and  it  was  then 
named  Nikopolis.  Africanus  was  one  of  the  most  learned 
Christians  of  the  early  Church,  and  deserves  a  place  beside  the 
great  Alexandrians  Clement  and  Origen.  Unfortunately  his 
writings  are  not  well  preserved.  His  great  work  was  a  chrono- 
graphy.  He  wrote  a  letter  to  Aristides  touching  the  conflicting 
genealogies  of  Jesus. — Ammonius,  who  lived  at  Alexandria  at 
the  time  of  Origen,  was  a  philosopher,  but  as  well  a  Christian ; 
and  he  WTOte  a  harmony  of  the  Gospels  that  has,  unfortunately 
for  us,  not  unfortunately  for  the  text  of  the  four  Gospels,  long 
been  lost.  The  sections  that  belong  to  Eusebius  used  to  be 
attributed  erroneously  to  him. — A  Syrian  writer,  James  Aphraates, 
or  Aphrahat,  or  Farhad,  who  was  bishop  in  the  monastery  of 
Matthew,  near  Mosul,  lived  about  the  middle  of  the  fourth 
century.  His  homilies  give  us  much  that  is  important  for  the 
history  of  the  text  in  Syria. — A  Latin  companion  for  the  com- 
mentaries of  Andrew  and  Arethas  of  Caesarea  would  be  found 
in  a  work  written  about  the  year  540,  if  we  only  had  a  com- 
plete copy  of  it.  Its  author  was  Aprigius  or  Apringius,  who  was 
bishop  of  Pax  Julia  or  Beja  in  Portugal — not  of  Pax  Augusta  or 
Badajoz,  in  Spain,  as  that  city  dreams. — Cyprian  is  a  very  good 
writer  for  the  purposes  of  textual  criticism.  It  would  be  con- 
venient to  have  a  Greek  writer  like  him  every  fifty  years  from 
Paul  to  Eusebius.  Thascius  CaeciHus  Cyprianus  was  made 
bishop   of  Carthage  about  248,  and  died  in  258.     He  quotes 


430  THE  TEXT 

scripture  constantly,  and  in  large  sections  or  long  passages, 
which  he  must  needs  have  taken  from  the  roll,  and  not  have 
written  down  from  memory.  Although  he  is  a  Latin  writer,  and 
although  he  is  so  near  to  Tertullian,  he  betrays  no  acquaintance 
with  that  curious  Lord's  Prayer  of  Tertullian's. 


Second  Century  Writers. 

Let  us  ask  ourselves  in  land  after  land  what  witnesses  were 
to  be  had  during  the  second  century.  We  begin  with  Syria. 
At  the  opening  of  the  century  we  find  Ignatius,  the  bishop  of 
Antioch,  who  was  martyred,  perhaps  about  117.  His  New 
Testament  will  have  been  a  very  early  one,  will  have  been  one 
that  had  not  yet  been  compacted  together,  but  was  living  along 
in  the  rolls  of  the  separate  books.  Next  comes  Hegesippus, 
the  traveller  and  writer,  whose  book  we  long  to  have.  Justin 
the  martyr  follows,  and  passes  from  Samaria  to  Italy,  and 
becomes  a  teacher  of  many  in  Rome.  Tatian  approaches,  pos- 
sibly from  Eastern  Syria,  but  a  Greek  and  raised  as  a  Greek. 
Theophilus  of  Antioch  quotes  much  scripture  to  his  heathen 
friend  Autolycus,  but  chiefly  Old  Testament  passages,  because 
he  is  urging  the  antiquity  of  Christianity.  And  for  a  side-light 
we  may  name  Manes  in  Persia.  Of  course,  we  should  like  to 
have  more  witnesses  for  Syria  for  the  space  of  a  hundred  years, 
but  these  would  give  us  at  least  a  slight  notion  of  the  state  of 
affairs  in  textual  matters  if  we  had  all  their  writings.  To  these 
writers  we  must  then  add  the  Old-Syrian  translation.  So  much 
for  Syria,  although  we  must  not  forget  that  some  of  these 
witnesses  had,  like  Hegesippus,  Justin,  and  Tatian,  connections 
with  the  West,  with  Rome. 

If  we  turn  to  Egypt,  it  is  probable  that  we  should  name  first 
of  all  the  letter  of  Barnabas.  It  seems  to  belong  there.  Then 
comes  the  important  writer  Clement  of  Alexandria,  from  whom 
we  have  fair  remains.  Then  we  may  hypothetically  attribute 
the  Teaching  of  the  Apostles  to  Egypt.  The  Boheiric  and  Saidic 
translations  bring  much  material  for  the  text.  The  side-lights 
here  are  Apelles  and  Basilides  and  Valentinus,  who  was  also  at 
Rome,  perhaps  Ptolemaeus  and  the  Antitactae,  and  then  Carpo- 
crates.     Of  these  Clement  is  in  himself  a  host. 


CHURCH   WRITERS— SECOND  AND   THIRD   CENTURY    43 1 

Asia  Minor  recalls  to  us  the  valiant  old  Polycarp  and  his 
letter,  and  as  well  the  story  of  his  martyrdom.  Then  comes 
Papias,  whose  book  will  surely  some  day  open  new  vistas  for 
textual  criticism.  The  presbyter  or  the  presbyters  whom 
Irenaeus  names,  belong  here,  and  so  do  Polycrates,  and  Melito 
of  Sardes. 

In  Greece  two  apologists  come  to  meet  us,  Aristides,  to  whom 
Julius  Africanus  wrote  the  letter  about  the  genealogies  of  Jesus, 
and  Athenagoras. 

In  Italy  we  have  two  to  mention  who  came  from  Asia  Minor, 
and  who  might  be  attached  to  that  land,  namely,  Marcion,  the 
daring  and  reckless  critic,  and  Theodotus.  Victor  of  Rome 
must  be  added  tentatively. 

From  North  Africa  we  receive  the  Acts  of  Perpetua,  which' 
may  even  have  been  written  by  TertuUian  himself,  and  the  Old- 
Latin  translation. 

In  Gaul  we  are  again  reminded  of  Asia  Minor,  for  Irenaeus, 
the  bishop  of  Lyons,  came  from  Smyrna.  And  in  Gaul  the 
Churches  of  Vienne  and  Lyons  speak  in  no  uncertain  tone. 

We  may  give  in  closing  a  few  names  that  we  do  not  know 
precisely  how  to  limit  geographically.  There  is  the  Letter  to 
Diognetus.  Heracleon  is  an  important  writer.  Hermias  the 
philosopher  may  belong  to  this  century,  but  is  placed  by  others 
at  a  later  point.  As  side-lights  we  have  the  Docetae,  the  Encra- 
titae,  the  Marcosians,  the  Naassenes,  the  Peratae,  and  the  Valen- 
tinians. 

Third  Century  Writers. 

The  third  century  offers  us,  in  Syria,  Julius  Africanus,  who 
might  have  been  connected  with  the  close  of  the  second  century. 
Archelaus  follows,  who  was  the  bishop  of  Chascar  in  Mesopo- 
tamia about  the  year  278.  And  in  Methodius  Eubulius,  the 
so-called  bishop  of  Tyre,  we  have  possibly  not  a  Tyrian  but  the 
bishop  of  Olympia  in  Lycia.  He  died  as  a  martyr  in  311  at 
Chalcis  in  Greece,  or  in  Coele-Syria.  Paul  of  Samosata,  bolstered 
up  by  royalty,  may  form  a  transition  to  the  heathen  philosopher 
Porphyrius  of  Tyre,  who  wrote  fifteen  books  against  the  Christians, 
that  disappeared  long  ago. — Egypt  supplies  us  here  with  the 
name  of  the  most   powerful  of  the   Christian   writers,  Origen, 


432  THE  TEXT 

whom  we  could  well  also  bring  forward  for  Palestine,  because  of 
his  long  residence  at  Caesarea.  His  successor,  Dionysius  of 
Alexandria,  was  a  man  who  thought  for  himself,  as  we  saw  from 
his  discussion  of  the  Revelation.  Ammonius  belongs  here,  whom 
we  mentioned  a  moment  ago.  Peter  of  Alexandria  passes  over 
into  the  fourth  century,  dying  as  a  martyr  in  311.  Alexander 
of  Lycopolis  wrote  against  Manichaeism,  and  reaches  into  the 
fourth  century  also.  Theognostus  followed  Pierius  as  head  of 
the  school  in  Alexandria.  He  flourished  about  the  year  283. 
Adimantus  was  one  of  the  twelve  disciples  of  Manes.  He 
flourished  about  277,  but  his  influence  would  appear  to  have 
been  lasting,  seeing  that  Augustine  wrote  a  book  against  him. 
The  Pistis  Sophia  is  a  notable  book  from  the  Valentinian 
school,  written  in  Saidic. — In  Asia  Minor  we  may  name  Firmilian, 
who  was  a  friend  of  Origen's,  and  who  was  bishop  of  Csesarea 
in  Cappadocia  in  233;  and  Gregory  the  Wonder-Worker,  who 
was  born  at  New  Caesarea  in  Cappadocia,  and  who  died  as 
bishop  there  perhaps  in  265  or  270. — Italy  furnishes  the  great 
name  of  Hippolytus.  Would  that  we  had  his  complete  works, 
and  not  merely  the  names  of  the  most  of  them.  Besides  him 
we  may  point  to  Callistus,  Cornelius,  Gaius,  and  Novatian. — 
In  North  Africa  we  have  two  names  that  give  us  a  great  deal 
of  help :  TertuUian  and  Cyprian.  From  Pannonia  we  have 
Victorinus,  who  may  have  been  by  birth  a  Greek.  He  was 
bishop  of  Pettau  about  the  year  290,  and  died  a  martyr's 
death  about  303.  Apollonius  is  not  certainly  to  be  localised. 
It  may  be  that  he  belongs  to  Asia  Minor.  The  Apostolical 
Constitutions  have  varied  relations  of  date  and  probably  of  place. 


Fourth  Century  Writers. 

The  fourth  century  brings,  with  the  new  freedom  for  the 
Church,  with  the  dangerous  attachment  to  the  royal  houses, 
the  closing  great  movements  for  the  correction  of  the  text. 
Now  the  writers  multiply  apace.  In  Syria  we  have  Aphraates 
and  Ephraim,  and  then  Jacob  or  James  of  Nisibis,  and  Titus 
the  bishop  of  Bostra  in  Arabia.  Titus  wrote  against  the  Mani- 
chaeans,  and  a  very  common  chain  for  the  text  of  Luke  is  largely 
drawn  from  his  writings.     On  the  Greek  side  of  Syrian  life  stands 


CHURCH  WRITERS— FOURTH  CENTURY     433 

Pamphilus  whom  we  know  well,  and  his  friend  and  mourner 
Eusebius  of  Caesarea.  Then  we  find  Acacius  the  One-Eyed, 
who  was  a  pupil  of  Eusebius',  and  became  his  successor  as  bishop 
of  Caesarea  in  the  year  340.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  was  bishop 
from  350  until  386,  but  he  was  driven  away  from  Jerusalem  three 
times.  Chrysostom  belongs  here,  for  Constantinople  had  but 
a  few  years  from  him.  Diodorus  was  born  in  Antioch,  and  was 
bishop  of  Tarsus  from  about  379  to  390.  He  wrote  a  great  deal, 
but  we  have  only  trifling  fragments  of  his  works,  chiefly  found 
in  chains.  From  Eusebius  of  Emesa  or  Homs,  of  about  the 
year  350,  we  have  a  few  remains.  Eustathius,  elected  bishop  of 
Antioch  by  the  Council  of  Nice,  and  soon  harried  out  of  his  chair 
by  the  Arians,  is  known  to  us  by  some  few  fragments.  We  may 
add  Macarius  i.,  bishop  of  Jerusalem,  and  Meletius  an  Armenian, 
bishop  of  Sebaste,  and  in  the  year  360  bishop  of  Antioch.  The 
Latin  contribution  from  Syria  is  a  large  one,  for  it  consists  of 
over  thirty  years  of  the  Hfe  of  Jerome  the  Dalmatian. 

If  the  suppositions  of  some  scholars  correspond  to  the  facts 
of  the  past,  Egypt  gave  us  the  great  Sinaitic  and  Vatican  manu- 
scripts during  this  century.  From  Alexander,  bishop  of  Alexandria, 
say  from  313  until  326,  an  opponent  of  Arius',  we  have  two  letters, 
one  touching  the  heresy  of,  and  the  other  the  deposition  of  Arius. 
Arius  himself  must  be  named,  and  the  other  side  in  Athanasius, 
and  with  them  Didymus,  then  a  mere  boy,  who  died  in  394  or 
399,  and  Evagrius,  who  was  archdeacon  in  Constantinople,  and 
then  a  monk  at  Scetis  in  Egypt,  and  Theophilus,  who  became 
bishop  of  Alexandria  in  385,  and  died  in  412,  and  Timotheus, 
the  predecessor  of  Theophilus.  To  these  may  be  added 
Macarius  Magnes,  Marcus  Diadochus,  who  also  was  at  Rome 
and  in  North  Africa,  Marcus  the  Monk,  Thalassius  in  Libya, 
Isaiah,  Serapion,  Antonius,  Orsiesis,  and  Phileas,  We  join  the 
Ethiopic  translation  on  to  these  Egyptian  names. 


Asia  Minor. 

In  Asia  Minor  we  have  Amphilochius,  the  bishop  of  Iconium, 

about  the  year  370.    Asterius,  by  birth  a  heathen  from  Cappadocia, 

converted  in  the  year  304,  afterwards  a  zealous  Arian,  and  who 

wrote  commentaries  to  the  Psalms,  the  Gospels,  and  Romans, 

28 


434  THE   TEXT 

is  only  known  by  fragments  in  the  chains.  Basil  the  Great, 
bishop  of  Caesarea  in  Cappadocia,  was  born  in  329  and  died 
379.  The  two  Apollinarius  were  father  and  son.  The  father, 
born  in  Alexandria,  became  after  the  year  335  presbyter  of 
Laodicea.  The  son  was  bishop  of  Laodicea,  but  turned  heretic. 
He  died  about  392.  Caesarius  of  Nazianzus  was  a  brother  of 
Gregory  of  Nazianzus,  and  died  in  368.  Epiphanius,  who  .was 
born  in  Palestine,  became  in  368  bishop  of  Salamis,  later  named 
Constantia,  on  the  island  of  Cyprus.  He  died  in  402.  His 
works  are  extremely  important  for  us.  Eunomius  was  born  in 
Dacora  near  Caesarea  in  Cappadocia,  and  became  bishop  of 
Cyzicus  in  the  year  360.  He  was  expelled  and  exiled  as  an 
Arian,  and  died,  very  old,  at  Dacora.  His  Presentation  of  Faith 
was  laid  before  Theodosius  in  383.  His  Apologetic  was  directed 
against  the  Nicene  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  Gregory  of  Nazianzus 
we  have  already  discussed.  He  died  in  389.  Gregory  of  Nyssa 
became  bishop  there  about  the  year  370.  Marcellus,  the 
bishop  of  Ancyra  in  Galatia,  died  in  372. 

We  may  mention  in  Constantinople,  Macedonius,  who  was 
originally  a  feather  merchant,  but  who  became  a  priest,  and  then 
bishop  at  Constantinople.  He  denied  the  divinity  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  His  opponents  disposed  of  his  arguments  in  a  most 
Christian  and  highly  effectual  manner,  by  killing  him  in  a  fight  on 
the  street. — In  Thrace,  at  Heraclea  on  the  Sea  of  Marmora, 
Theodore  of  that  city  became  bishop  in  it  in  the  year  334.  He 
died  about  the  year  358. — Italy  gives  us  in  this  century  the  Codex 
of  Vercelli,  the  manuscript  a  of  the  Latin  Gospels.  Ambrose  the 
mayor  and  bishop  belongs  here;  who  flourished  from  374  until 
397.  A  not  certainly  known  author,  perhaps  Faustinus,  is 
associated  with  Ambrosius  as  a  Pseudo-Ambrosius  or  Ambrosi- 
aster.  His  commentaries  on  the  Epistles  of  Paul  were  published 
with  the  works  of  Ambrosius.  Fortunatianus  was  bishop  of 
Aquileia  about  the  year  340.  Gaudentius  was  bishop  of 
Brescia,  perhaps  from  the  year  387  onwards.  Julius,  the  bishop 
of  Rome  from  337  to  352,  wrote  two  letters  which  Athanasius 
gives  us  in  the  Apology  for  Flight.  Lucifer,  the  bishop  of 
Cagliari  on  Sardinia,  was  exiled  four  times.  He  died  in  371. 
Paulinus  reminds  us  of  Ambrosius  by  his  passage  from  State 
to  Church.  His  name  was  Pontius  Paulinus  Meropius,  and  he 
was  born  in  353  at  Bordeaux,  having  studied  under  Ausonius ; 


CHURCH   WRITERS  435 

he  later  became  Senator  at  Rome.  He  was  baptized  in  the 
year  391,  made  a  presbyter  in  the  year  393,  and  was  afterwards 
bishop  of  Nola  in  Campania,  on  which  account  he  is  sometimes 
named  Paulinus  Nolanus.  He  died  in  431.  Philaster  or  Philas- 
trius,  possibly  an  Italian,  was  a  great  traveller.  He  became 
bishop  of  Brescia.  He  flourished  about  the  year  380.  We 
have  his  book  about  heresies.  Siricius  was  a  Roman.  He 
became  bishop  in  385  and  died  in  398.  Victorinus,  Gaius 
Marius  or  Marius  Fabius  Victorinus,  was  a  celebrated  teacher  of 
rhetoric  at  Rome,  and  taught  among  others  Augustine.  He 
passed  from  heathenism  to  Christianity  before  the  year  361. 
He  was  a  fertile  writer.  Zeno,  from  Africa,  was  bishop  of 
Verona  in  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century.  We  have  sixty- 
seven  sermons  from  him.  Perhaps  that  Faustinus  whom  we 
mentioned  above  as  a  candidate  for  the  works  of  Ambrosiaster 
was  the  author  of  Questions  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  a 
work  that  also  belongs  to  this  century. 

In  North  Africa  the  great  Augustine  looms  up  before  us ; 
born  in  354,  he  died  in  430.  Faustus  the  Manichaean  belonged 
to  Mileve  about  the  year  400.  We  can  make  the  acquaintance  of 
his  heretical  book  in  Augustine's  answer  to  it.  Optatus  was  bishop 
of  Mileve  about  the  year  368.  He  wrote  against  Parmenianus, 
the  bishop  of  the  Donatist  heretics  at  Carthage.  Tichonius  or 
Tyconius,  who  lived  towards  the  close  of  the  fourth  century,  was 
perhaps  a  friend  of  the  Donatists.  There  is  a  book  on  Re- 
baptizing  among  the  works  of  Cyprian  that  may  be  from 
Africa,  although  it  has  been  also  assigned  to  Italy. — In  Spain 
we  have  Juvencus,  who  was  a  poet  as  well  as  a  presbyter.  He 
wrote  four  books  about  the  Gospel  history  in  heroic  verse, 
about  the  year  330.  Pacianus  was  bishop  of  Barcelona  about 
the  year  370.  Priscillian,  the  bishop  of  the  fourth  century,  who 
held  heretical  views  and  who  taught  a  Panchristism  that  disposed 
of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  is  at  the  present  moment  especi- 
ally interesting,  because  it  has  been  plausibly  argued  that  the 
spurious  verse  in  i  John  5''-  ^  is  to  be  attributed  to  him. 

In  Gaul,  Hilary  of  Poitiers  filled  a  large  place.  He  was  pro- 
bably born  about  the  year  310.  He  was  a  heathen,  but  became 
later  a  Christian.  In  354  he  was  appointed  bishop  of  Poitiers. 
Two  years  later,  in  356,  he  was  driven  from  his  chair  because  he 
had  attacked  the  Arians  in  Phrygia  violently ;  but  he  was  rein- 


436  THE   TEXT 

stated  in  360,  and  died  in  368.  He  wrote  a  commentary  on 
Matthew,  and  one  on  the  Psalms,  and  twelve  books  on  the 
Trinity.  Lactantius,  the  brilliant  writer,  the  Christian  Cicero, 
belongs  both  to  Italy  and  to  Gaul  and  perhaps  also  to  North 
Africa.  He  was  born  about  the  year  260  in  Italy,  it  would  appear, 
though  some  say  in  Africa,  went  to  Nicomedia  probably  soon 
after  290,  and  to  Gaul  about  307,  dying  there  about  340.  He 
wrote  a  book  called  Divine  Institutions,  and  another  On  the 
Deaths  of  Persecutors.  Phoebadius  or  Phoegadius  was  bishop  of 
Agen  in  "  Aquitania  secunda."  He  was  still  aHve  in  392.  He 
quoted  very  carefully  from  the  text  and  not  from  memory.  We 
have  a  book  of  his  against  the  Arians.  The  Gothic  translation 
may  have  been  made  on  the  banks  of  the  Danube.  Faustinus  is 
of  uncertain  place,  yet  he  may  have  been  a  Roman  presbyter 
about  the  year  383,  at  the  time  of  the  schism  of  Lucifer.  He 
wrote  "to  Galla  Placidia  on  the  Trinity  or  about  Faith  against 
the  Arians."  Maternus  is  also  not  to  be  placed  definitely. 
He  flourished  about  the  year  34c,  it  may  be,  and  wrote  "  about 
the  errors  of  profane  religions  "  to  Constantius  and  Constans  the 
emperors.  Maximinus  was  a  bishop  of  the  Arians  of  unknown 
residence,  against  whom  Augustine  wrote  two  books.  Therewith 
we  may  leave  the  review  of  the  Church  writers. 


43; 


VIII. 

PRINTED  EDITIONS, 

The  manuscripts  of  which  we  have  spoken  brought  the  text 
of  the  New  Testament  down  to  the  sixteenth  century.  We  are 
in  danger  of  supposing  that  so  soon  as  the  first  printed  editions 
of  the  texts  were  issued,  the  manuscripts  stopped  short.  Yet 
that  is  not  the  case.  The  New  Testament  of  Alcala  and  that 
of  Basel  did  not  instantly  spread  like  wildfire  through  the  cities, 
towns,  villages,  and  monasteries  of  the  East.  Many  a  manuscript 
was  written  after  that  time  and  even  down  into  the  nineteenth 
century,  both  of  the  continuous  text  and  of  the  Church  lessons. 
Nevertheless,  the  critic  of  the  text  has  a  good  reason  for  busying 
himself  less  with  these  later  volumes.  He  does  not  expect  to 
find  in  them  material  which  he  has  not  at  hand  in  other  and 
earlier  manuscripts.  He  examines  each  one  in  passing,  so  as 
to  establish  the  connection  of  its  text  with  other  books,  but  he 
considers  it  likely  that  he  has  in  his  hands  some  nearer  or  more 
remote  ancestor  thereof 

The  beginning  of  the  printed  editions  of  the  Greek  Text  of 
the  New  Testament  was  in  more  than  one  way  different  from 
what  might  have  been  anticipated.  We  pay  so  much  attention 
to  the  Greek  text  and  have  such  a  high  respect  for  it,  that  it 
is  difficult  for  us  to  put  ourselves  in  the  place  of  the  Christians 
in  Europe  at  the  opening  of  the  printing-offices.  To  us  it  would 
seem  as  if  the  Greek  Text  must  at  once  have  been  printed  the 
moment  that  printing  was  invented.  We  should  indeed  not  be 
surprised  that  the  Bible  in  the  various  vernacular  languages 
should  be  sent  to  the  Press.  Yet  after  these,  practically  valuable 
volumes,  surely  the  Greek  text  must  have  been  issued.  But  no. 
The  West  did  not  care  particularly  for  the  Greek  Bible.  The 
one  great  Bible  of  Western  Europe  was  the  Latin  Bible.  It  was 
therefore  the  first  or  about  the  first  object  of  the  printer's  skill. 
It  may  have  appeared  in  the  same  year  as  the  German  Bible, 
or  it  may  have  been  a  few  years  in  advance  of  it,  but  at  any 


438  THE  TEXT 

rate  soon  after  the  middle  of  the  fifteenth  century.  That  was 
the  time  at  which  the  fall  of  Constantinople  and  the  general 
inroads  of  the  Turks  were  driving  the  educated  Greeks  to  the 
West.  They  taught  Greek  wherever  they  settled,  in  Italy,  and 
France,  and  England.  But  the  scholars  who  were  anxious  to 
learn  Greek  did  not  apply  it  in  the  first  instance  to  the  New 
Testament.  They  were  eager  to  delve  into  the  profane  literature 
of  Greece.     It  was  new  to  them.     The  Bible  they  had. 

The  Greek  immigrants  did  have  to  do  with  the  Greek  New 
Testament  now  and  then,  but  it  was  not  with  the  printing  of  it. 
Now  and  then  they  copied  a  Greek  manuscript  for  a  Western 
scholar.  That  was  the  due  continuation  of  their  past.  They  had 
nothing  to  do  with  printing  the  New  Testament.  It  may  be  that 
Eastern  Greeks,  prelates  or  rich  merchants,  would  have  ordered 
editions  of  their  sacred  books  in  the  forms  of  the  new  art,  if  the 
times  had  been  quiet.  But  in  the  East  all  was  turmoil  and 
confusion.  Property  and  life  were  the  first  concern  of  all.  The 
Christians  were  happy  if  they  succeeded  in  saving  their  old 
books  from  destruction, — and  often  they  could  not  compass  that, 
— and  they  had  no  time  to  think  of  having  new  books  made, 
which  they  perhaps  would  be  unable  to  protect  from  the  swords 
and  torches  of  their  barbarous  assailants. 

The  first  verses  of  the  New  Testament  that  were  printed 
in  Greek  were,  so  far  as  we  know,  the  hymns  of  Mary — or 
is  it  Elisabeth  ?— and  of  Zacharias  from  Luke  i^^^-^^  and  ^8-79^ 
The  Greek  psalms  in  the  manuscripts  had  for  centuries  had 
as  an  appendix,  not  only  the  so-called  one  hundred  and  fifty- 
first  Psalm,  but  also  a  series  of  Old  Testament  hymns,  includ- 
ing the  hymn  of  the  Three  Children,  and  the  above  hymns 
from  the  New  Testament,  to  which  the  words  of  Simeon 
and  a  non-biblical  morning  hymn  were  often  added.  Now  in 
the  year  1481  a  monk  named  John  of  Placenta  published  on 
the  twentieth  of  September  at  Milan  an  edition  of  the  Psalms 
in  Greek,  and  in  the  appendix  he  placed  those  hymns  out  of  the 
first  chapter  of  Luke.  There  was  after  all  a  certain  poetical 
propriety  in  the  fact  that  those  preliminary  odes  should  have 
first  found  their  way  to  the  Press.  Theologically  speaking,  the 
next  fragment  that  was  printed  should  have  been  the  first,  for 
it  was  John  i^"^^  the  opening  lesson  on  the  great  Easter  Sunday, 
as  we  saw.     It  came  out  at  Venice  in  the  year  1495  in  a  volume 


PRINTED   EDITIONS— COMPLUTUM  439 

containing  the  Questions  of  Constantine  Lascar  with  a  Latin 
translation.     Still  there  is  no  Greek  New  Testament  in  print. 

The  next  printed  fragment  I  might  call  larger,  yet  it  was 
printed  in  a  very  fragmentary  way,  and  in  a  way  that  speaks  with 
but  little  favour  for  the  knightly  qualities  of  the  printer,  and  for 
his  appreciation  of  the  value  of  the  text  of  the  New  Testament 
and  of  the  honour  due  to  it.  Aldo  Manucci  was  the  printer,  we 
might  almost  say  the  .culprit.  In  the  year  1504  he  printed  at 
Venice,  as  the  third  volume  of  his  Christian  Poets,  sixty-six 
poems  of  Gregory  of  Nazianzus.  Besides  the  Greek  text,  he 
wished  to  give  also  a  Latin  translation,  and  that  in  such  a  way 
that  it  could  be  added  to  the  Greek  text  by  placing  the  double 
leaves  within  each  other,  or  could  be  left  out  altogether  if  the 
buyer  preferred.  Of  course,  then  the  two  inner  middle  pages  of 
tach  Greek  sheet  had  to  be  left  free  from  the  text  of  Gregory, 
because  there  would  be  no  Latin  companion  for  them.  There 
were  then  fourteen  double  pages  scattered  through  the  whole 
book  which  would  have  to  be  left  empty  if  the  printer  could 
not  devise  a  special  plan  for  filling  them,  a  plan  that  would  not 
affect  the  rest  of  the  text.  Manucci's  plan,  which  he  carried 
out  so  far  as  this  book  goes,  was  to  print  in  these  gaps  the 
beginning  of  the  Gospel  of  John.  Accordingly  we  find  on  these 
helter-skelter  pages  John  ii-6^s  in  Greek  and  Latin.  Under 
the  Greek  text  in  each  sheet  we  read  :  "  Look  for  the  rest  in  the 
middle  of  the  next  quire."  At  the  close  of  the  table  of  contents 
he  said  that  he  would  continue  the  Gospel  of  John  in  his  trans- 
lation of  Nonnus  of  Panopolis.  Probably  he  was  prevented 
from  printing  that,  for  no  copy  of  it  from  his  press  is  known. 
That  was  not  a  respectful  way  to  treat  scripture,  to  use  it  as 
a  mere  fill-gap. 

Alcala-Complutum. 

But  at  last  we  shall  reach,  just  ten  years  later,  a  printed  copy 
of  the  Greek  New  Testament,  though  no  one  was  able  to  buy 
it  until  long  after  it  was  printed.  We  must  go  to  Spain.  Hard 
as  it  seems  to  day  to  believe  it,  there  was  then  in  Spain  a  great 
cardinal  and  a  great  scholar.  His  name  was  Francis  Ximenes 
de  Cisneros,  and  he  was  archbishop  of  Toledo.  As  early  as 
the  year  1502  he  began  to  prepare  in  the  university  of  Alcala, 


440  THE  TEXT 

with  the  Latin  name  Complutum,  an  edition  of  the  Bible  which 
was  to  have  in  the  Old  Testament  the  Hebrew  original  and  as 
well  the  Greek  and  Latin  translations,  and  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment the  Greek  original  and  the  Latin  translation.  The  volume 
containing  the  New  Testament  was  the  fifth  volume,  but  it  came 
out  first.  The  editors  were  James  Lopez  de  Stunica  or  Astuniga, 
Fernando  Nunez  de  Guzman,  Demetrius  Ducas  from  Crete,  and 
Antonio  from  Lebrija  near  Seville.  '1  hey  finished  printing  the 
New  Testament  on  January  loth,  1514.  The  first  four  volumes, 
containing  the  Old  Testament  and  the  sixth  volume  with  its 
lexicon,  were  finished  by  the  lolh  of  July  15 17.  Still,  however, 
the  volumes  were  not  then  published.  In  reference  to  the  Old 
Testament  it  is  interesting  to  observe  that  the  editors  betray  in 
their  preface  by  a  very  strong  sentence  a  preparatory  step  to 
the  egregious  overestimation  of  the  Latin  text  of  the  Bible 
uttered  by  the  Council  of  Trent  on  April  8th,  1546.  For,  re- 
ferring to  the  fact  that  they  had  placed  the  Latin  text  in  the 
middle  and  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  at  the  sides,  they  said  that 
the  Latin  text  was  like  Jesus  between  the  two  thieves.  The 
Greek  types  used  in  the  New  Testament  volume  were  singular, 
very  thick  and  stiff,  straight  up  and  down.  Instead  of  the  usual 
Greek  accents,  the  editors  merely  placed  an  acute  accent  on  the 
syllable  accented.  The  monosyllables  had  no  accent  at  all. 
There  were  no  spiritus.  The  other  volumes  had  the  usual  Greek 
letters  with  accents  and  spiritus.  Now  these  six  volumes  were  all 
done  by  the  year  15 17.  The  pope's,  Leo  x.'s,  approval  was  not 
received  until  March  22nd,  1520,  and  we  can  find  no  traces  of  the 
books  being  in  the  hands  of  scholars  before  the  year  1522.  There 
were  five  short  notes  in  the  New  Testament,  one  in  Matthew, 
three  in  First  Corinthians,  and  one  in  i  John  5"-  ^.  This  last 
passage  was  taken  from  the  Vulgate.  The  Greek  text  was  of  a 
late  description ;  it  was  the  ordinary  continuation  of  the  written 
tradition.  Our  information  about  the  Complutensian  edition  is 
meagre.  We  are  much  better  acquainted  with  the  rival  edition 
made  by  Erasmus. 

Erasmus. 

Erasmus  began  to  print  his  edition  on  the  nth  of  September 
15 15,  and  it  was  done  by  the   ist  of  March  1516.     Froben,  the 


PRINTED  EDITIONS— ERASMUS   AND   ESTIENNE     44 1 

printer  and  publisher,  had  heard  of  the  Alcala  edition,  and  was 
anxious  to  get  his  edition  out  ahead  of  it.  He  was  successful 
enough  in  this  effort,  for  Erasmus  did  not  get  sight  of  a  copy  of 
that  other  New  Testament  until  after  his  own  third  edition  of  the 
year  1522  was  done.  It  was  not  strange  that  such  a  hasty  edition 
as  Erasmus'  first  edition  was,  should  have  many  faults.  Erasmus 
praised  his  own  edition  in  a  letter  to  the  pope,  but  he  elsewhere 
conceded  that  it  "  was  done  headlong  rather  than  edited."  The 
manuscripts  which  he  followed  most  closely  were  younger  ones. 
As  for  the  Revelation,  Erasmus  had  but  one  mutilated  manu- 
script, and  he  supplied  what  was  lacking  by  translating  the  words 
from  the  Vulgate  into  his  imperfect  Greek.  In  one  verse,  if 
we  may  refer  to  a  special  one,  he  omits  the  article  six  times, 
where  it  should  stand.  The  second  edition,  of  the  year  15 19, 
contains  Leo  x.'s  approving  letter  of  September  loth,  15 18. 
The  third  edition  was  issued  in  the  year  1522,  and  it  was  this 
edition  that,  alas  !  brought  the  baleful  verse  i  John  5^-  ^  out 
of  that  worthless  manuscript  at  Dublin.  The  fourth  edition  of 
the  year  1527  contained  not  only  the  Greek  text  with  Erasmus' 
translation,  but  also  the  text  of  the  Vulgate,  which  the  fifth 
edition  of  the  year  1535  again  laid  aside. 


EsTiENNE  Stephens,  Beza. 

There  was  a  family  of  printers  at  Paris  and  later  at  Geneva 
that  exercised  much  influence  in  theological  literature.  Robert 
Estienne  (to  be  pronounced  etienne),  the  son  of  Henri  Estienne 
the  First,  published  in  the  year  1546,  in  two  tiny  volumes,  a 
Greek  New  Testament.  His  son,  Henri  Estienne  the  Second, 
helped  him.  The  text  was  chiefly  taken  from  the  fifth  edition 
of  Erasmus  of  the  year  1535,  although  Estienne  also  used  the 
Alcala  edition.  In  the  year  1549  he  published  a  second  edition, 
scarcely  differing  from  the  first.  The  year  1550  saw  the  publica- 
tion of  Robert  Estienne's,  Stephens',  large  edition,  named  the 
Regia.  This  was  the  first  edition  with  a  critical  apparatus,  for 
the  son  Henri  compared  for  his  father  fifteen  manuscripts  and 
the  Alcala  edition,  and  the  readings  were  placed  on  the  margin. 
This  fine  edition  is  in  general  the  source  of  the  so-called  Textus 
Receptus  for  England.     In  the  following  year  Robert  Estienne 


442  THE  TEXT 

printed  his  last  edition  of  the  Greek  text  of  the  New  Testament. 
This  was  again  a  small  edition  in  two  volumes,  and  appeared  at 
Geneva,  not  at  Paris.  In  some  copies  the  year  was  printed  by 
mistake  MDXLI  instead  of  MDLI.  It  is  extremely  rare.  The 
great  peculiarity  of  this  edition  is  that  it  contains  for  the  first 
time  our  verse  division. 

The  next  editor  whom  we  have  to  name  is  again  a  French- 
man, Theodore  de  Beze,  Calvin's  successor  at  Geneva,  to 
whom  we  alluded  when  speaking  of  the  Codex  Bezas  and 
the  Codex  Claromontanus  which  belonged  to  him.  His  four 
large-sized  editions  of  the  text  of  the  New  Testament  were  pub- 
lished at  Geneva,  the  first  three  by  the  Estienne  Press,  the  fourth 
by  the  "heirs  of  Eustathe  \'ignon."  With  the  Greek  text  Beze 
published  also  his  annotations.  These  he  had  published  before 
in  a  volume  with  the  Vulgate  New  Testament,  the  third  volume 
of  a  Latin  Bible  that  Robert  Stephens  issued  in  1557.  On  the 
title-page,  therefore,  of  the  Greek  New  Testament  of  1565,  his 
own  first  Greek  edition,  he  very  properly  said  that  the  annotations 
appeared  for  the  second  time.  In  consequence  of  this,  careless 
scholars  have  applied  "second  edition,"  "hac  secunda  vice," 
to  his  Greek  text,  and  have  caused  confusion  that  lasted  for 
years.  Beze's  Greek  text  was  drawn  from  Estienne's  fourth 
edition  of  the  year  155 1.  His  second  edition  is  of  the  year 
1582,  his  third  of  the  year  1588,  or  sometimes,  in  some  copies, 
1589,  and  his  fourth  of  the  year  1598.  Besides  these  large- 
sized  folio  editions  which  were  normative,  he  published  five 
small  editions. 

The  Polyglots. 

We  have  now  reached  the  time  of  the  great  Polyglots.  The 
Complutensian  or  Alcala  Bible  was  indeed  in  a  manner  a 
polyglot,  because  it  had  not  only  the  Greek  and  Latin  text  of 
the  whole  Bible,  but  also  in  the  Old  Testament  the  Hebrew 
text.  But  now  we  come  to  something  more  extensive.  The 
first  one  appeared  under  the  auspices  of  Philip  n.  at  Antwerp. 
The  editor  was  Benedict  Arias  Montanus.  In  this  polyglot  we 
find  the  Greek  text  of  the  New  Testament  twice  over.  In  the 
fifth  volume  we  find  the  Syriac  text  of  the  New  Testament  in 
Syriac  letters,  then  the  Syriac  text  in  Hebrew  letters,  then  the 


PRINTED  EDITIONS  443 

Latin  translation  of  the  Syriac  text,  and  finally  the  Latin  Vulgate 
and  the  Greek  text.  This  Greek  text  agrees  in  the  main  with 
Robert  Estienne's  edition  of  the  year  1550.  In  the  sixth  volume 
we  again  have  the  Greek  text  with  an  interlinear  Latin  translation 
by  Montanus.  This  Greek  text  is  much  like  the  other.  The 
volume  is  sometimes  numbered  seventh  or  eighth.  The  name 
by  which  this  polyglot  goes  is  the  Antwerp  polyglot  or,  after 
its  printer  Christopher  Plantin,  the  Plantin  polyglot.  We  shall 
mention  at  once  the  other  two  polyglots.  The  Paris  polyglot 
contained  the  New  Testament  in  the  fifth  of  its  huge  volumes, 
the  first  part  of  which  appeared  in  1630,  the  second  in  1633. 
It  offers  the  Syrian  text  with  a  Latin  translation,  the  Latin 
Vulgate,  the  Greek  text  taken  from  the  Antwerp  polyglot,  and 
the  Arabic  text  with  a  Latin  translation.  The  London  polyglot, 
often  called  Walton's  polyglot  after  its  editor  Brian  Walton, 
appeared  in  the  year  1657.  The  New  Testament  is  in  the 
fifth  volume,  and  appears  in  the  Syrian  text  with  a  Latin 
translation,  the  Ethiopic  text  with  a  Latin  translation,  the 
Arabic  text  with  a  Latin  translation, — the  Gospels  are  also 
given  in  Persian  with  an  Arabic  translation, — the  Greek  text 
with  Montanus'  Latin  translation  between  the  lines,  and  the 
Vulgate  Latin  text.  The  Greek  text  is  from  Estienne's  edition 
of  1550.  The  sixth  volume  contained  several  collections  of 
various  readings,  especially  from  Walton's  hand  and  from  James 
Ussher's. 

The  Textus  Receptus. 

Now  we  must  go  back  to  the  end  of  the  first  quarter  of  the 
seventeenth  century  and  the  beginning  of  the  second  quarter, 
a  time  which  exercised,  critically  speaking,  a  pernicious  influence 
upon  the  progress  of  the  determination  of  the  Greek  text  of  the 
New  Testament,  which  fettered  all  research  or  all  application  of 
the  results  of  research  until  far  into  the  nineteenth  century.  It 
is  a  case  of  the  wide  influence  of  apparently  trifling  actions  or 
words.  The  Elzevir  publishers  in  Leiden  and  Amsterdam" 
pubhshed  in  1624  a  neat  little  New  Testament  in  Greek,  taking 
the  text  chiefly  from  Beze's  first  edition  of  the  year  1565.  There 
was  no  harm  in  that.  In  the  year  1633  ^^^Y  issued  a  second 
edition.     They   had   corrected  it   as   well   as   they   knew  how, 


444  THE  TEXT 

doubtless  helped  by  some  unknown  scholar  as  corrector,  and 
this  time  they  put  into  the  preface  a  sentence,  which  they,  of 
course,  in  their  ignorance  supposed  to  be  true,  yet  which  did 
not  correspond  to  the  facts.  They  wrote  :  "  Therefore  thou  hast 
the  text  now  received  by  all :  in  which  we  give  nothing  altered 
or  corrupt"  :  "Textum  ergo  habes,  nunc  ab  omnibus  receptum  : 
in  quo  nihil  immutatum  aut  corruptum  damus." 

These  ignorant  words  are  what  did  the  mischief,  and  led  to 
two  centuries  of  trouble  for  textual  critics.  It  was  not  the  case 
that  that  was  the  text  received  by  all,  and  much  less  was  it 
the  text  that  should  have  been  received  by  all.  But  people, 
even  many  who  should  have  known  better,  whose  education 
should  have  enabled  them  to  free  themselves  from  the  limitations 
of  these  publishers,  clung  to  these  words,  busied  themselves 
with  the  effort  to  prove  them  true,  and  denounced  all  who  did 
not  agree  with  them  at  least  as  blinded,  but  sometimes  as 
traitors  to  the  truth,  destroyers  of  the  New  Testament,  and  it 
may  be  as  totally  immoral  and  detestable  persons.  These 
publishers  issued  further  editions  in  the  years  1641,  1656,  1662, 
1670,  and  1678,  but  these  have  no  further  interest  for  us. 
The  text  which  has  been  considered  the  Received  Text  by 
theologians  of  different  places  and  different  years  has  not  ahvays 
been  one  and  the  same.  One  general  distinction  to  be  mentioned 
is  that  between  England  and  the  Continent,  inasmuch  as  the 
text  of  Estienne  of  the  Regia  edition  of  1550  has  for  the  most 
part  prevailed  in  England,  whereas  on  the  Continent  the  text 
of  Elzevir  of  the  year  1624  has  held  the  chief  place.  But  then 
the  handy  editions  of  the  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society 
have  done  much  to  bring  the  English  form  into  use  in  other 
countries.  It  is,  however,  to  be  kept  in  mind  that  in  a  large 
number  of  cases  theologians  have  presupposed  that  the  text 
which  some  chance  wind  had  brought  into  their  hands,  and 
which  was  when  exactly  viewed  neither  Estienne  1550  nor 
Elzevir  of  any  date,  was  the  Received  Text.  The  text  had 
doubtless  the  qualification  for  such  a  juxtaposition  in  being  of 
a  late  kind,  and  in  not  differing  materially  in  its  faults  from 
the  fancied  but  not  existing  commonly  received  text. 

A  Geneva  scholar,  Etienne  de  Courcelles,  who  died  at  Amster- 
dam in  1659,  had  much  insight  into  the  condition  of  the  text. 
He  published  in  the  Elzevir  office  at  Amsterdam  in  the  year  1658 


PRINTED   EDITIONS— JOHN   MILL  445 

a  Greek  New  Testament  that  must  be  carefully  kept  separate 
from  the  Elzevir  editions  just  mentioned.  It  is  true  that,  as 
the  necessities  of  that  day  demanded,  he  printed  for  the  most 
part  the  Elzevir  text  of  1633  with  but  few  variations.  But  he 
added  a  very  learned  preface  and  a  great  many  various  readings 
both  from  manuscripts  and  from  earlier  editions.  He  placed 
the  heavenly  witnesses,  i  John  5"-  ^,  in  a  parenthesis.  The  reward 
of  his  labours  were  attacks  made  upon  him  as  a  favourer  of 
Arianism.     He   intended    to  publish  a  large   Greek  and   Latin 

edition  with  various  readings,  but  he  did  not  live  to  finish  it. 

In  the  year  1675,  John  Fell,  who  was  afterwards  bishop  of 
Oxford,  published  a  Greek  New  Testament,  giving  also  the 
text  of  Elzevir  1633  and  addng  various  readings  from  Courcelles 
and  from  the  London  polyglot  and  from  twelve  Oxford 
manuscripts.  From  friends  he  received  further  various  readings 
from  Dublin  and  from  France,  these  out  of  Greek  manuscripts, 
and  then  from  the  Gothic  and  the  Boheiric  translations,  the 
latter  of  which  was  then  still  called  simply  Coptic. 


John  Mill,  Wells,  Bentley,  Mace 

Fell's  mantle  found  worthy  shoulders  in  John  Mill,  who  began 
an  imposing  edition  of  the  New  Testament  in  Greek,  and  had 
reached  in  print  the  twenty-fourth  chapter  of  Matthew  before 
Fell,  who  furthered  the  work,  died.  That  was  in  the  year  1686. 
Then  he  seems  to  have  lost  heart  and  to  have  let  the  book  lie. 
Finally,  he  was  in  the  year  1704  made  a  canon  of  Canterbury, 
and  the  Queen  ordered  him  to  finish  his  edition  as  soon  as 
possible.  It  appeared  in  the  year  1707,  and  Mill  passed  away. 
This  was  one  of  the  great  wotks  of  the  theologians  of  the 
world,  and  would  have  done  credit  to  Origen.  He  used  Estienne's 
text  of  the  year  1550,  but  he  changed  the  readings  in  thirty-one 
passages.  He  gathered  various  readings  from  every  accessible 
quarter.  It  would  at  that  time  have  been  totally  impossible 
for  him  to  make  a  text  for  himself.  No  one  would  have  borne 
it.  But  in  the  preface,  which  was  beyond  praise,  and  in  the 
notes  under  the  text,  he  showed  what  he  considered  to  be  the 
right  readings.  Although  he  had,  by  retaining  in  general  the 
accustomed  text,  made  such  concessions  to  the  opinions  of  the 


446  THE  TEXT 

common  run  of  theologians,  he  was  nevertheless  attacked  in  the 
most  violent  manner;  I  say,  he  was  attacked,  but  happily,  aj 
we  have  seen,  he  had  gone  to  his  reward ;  his  book  was  attacked. 
It  was  then  republished  in  Amsterdam  by  Ludolf  Kiister,  but 
the  age  was  so  little  inclined  to  studies  of  the  kind  that  the  sale 
hung  fire.  Again  and  again  it  was  put  forth  with  a  new  title-page. 
I  think  I  have  seen  copies  of  Leipzig  1723  and  Amsterdam  1746. 

Edward  Wells,  who  died  in  the  year  1727,  published  a  Greek 
New  Testament  in  ten  parts  between  1709  and  17 19,  which  was 
accompanied  by  an  English  translation  and  paraphrase  as  well  as 
by  critical  and  exegetical  notes  and  various  long  essays.  Unfor- 
tunately I  have  not  yet  seen  this  work.  It  was  the  first  edition, 
after  Beze's  editions,  that  changed  the  text  upon  the  basis  of 
manuscripts.  The  great  philologian  Richard  Bentley,  who  died  in 
1742,  wrote  to  John  Mill  so  early  as  1691  about  textual  criticism. 
Later  he  determined  to  edit  a  Greek  and  Latin  New  Testament. 
For  this  purpose  he  collated  himself  and  caused  others,  also 
Wettstein,  and  especially  John  Walker,  to  collate  both  Latin 
and  Greek  manuscripts.  His  intention  was  to  constitute  the 
text  from  the  oldest  manuscripts  in  the  two  languages.  His 
propositions  for  such  an  edition  were  published,  and  were,  of 
course,  the  object  of  the  antagonism  of  the  men  who  thought 
that  the  salvation  of  the  Church  lay  in  the  undisturbed  use  of 
the  Received  Text.  Bentley  was  not  the  man  to  be  stopped 
by  an  attack  of  that  kind.  He  liked  fighting.  We  can  apparently 
see  that  Walker  was  still  collating  for  Bentley  in  the  year  1732. 
But  the  edition  never  was  published.  The  work  grew  upon 
him  and  he  grew  old.  It  is  also  very  likely  that  he  came  to 
see  that  the  harmony  between  the  various  Greek  manuscripts 
and  the  Old-Latin  manuscripts  was  not  so  close  as  he  had 
supposed  when  he  issued  his  propositions,  and  that  this  tended 
to  retard  the  work  itself  or  to  lengthen  the  work  itself,  and  as 
well  to  decrease  his  satisfaction  in  it. 

I  have  tried  in  vain  to  find  out  something  about  a 
Presbyterian  clergyman  named  William  or  perhaps  Daniel  Mace, 
who  is  said  to  have  been  a  member  of  Gresham  College  in 
London.  In  the  year  1729  he  published  at  London  a  New 
Testament  in  Greek  and  English  in  two  volumes :  "  containing 
the  original  text  corrected  from  the  authority  of  the  most 
authentic   manuscripts."     In   many  cases   he  has  the  readings 


PRINTED  EDITIONS— BENGEL  AND   WETTSTEIN      447 

that  the  modern  critics  with  their  vastly  enlarged  critical 
apparatus  have  chosen.  It  was  a  most  excellent  work,  and 
was,  as  a  matter  of  course,  violently  denounced.  If  Scrivener 
had  given  due  credit  to  Mace,  he  would  not  have  needed  to 
complain  quite  so  much  about  the  neglect  of  critical  work  in 
the  department  of  the  New  Testament  text  at  that  time. 


Bengel. 

In  the  year  1734,  Johannes  Albert  Bengel,  who  died  in  1752, 
published  a  valuable  edition  of  the  Greek  New  Testament.  As 
we  have  so  often  said  of  others,  so  we  must  say  of  Bengel, 
that  he  could  not  then  publish  a  text  of  his  own.  Neither  the 
publisher  nor  the  public  would  have  stood  it.  Bengel,  however, 
was  equal  to  the  occasion.  He  only  ventured,  indeed,  to  put 
the  good  readings  into  the  text  when  he  could  show  that  they 
already  had  appeared  in  some  good  edition.  But  he  divided 
the  various  readings  on  the  margin  into  five  classes.  The  first 
class  contained  the  genuine  readings,  and  these,  of  course,  should 
have  been  in  the  text  and  not  on  the  margin.  The  second 
class  contained  the  readings  that  were  better  than  those  in  the 
text,  and  these  should  in  like  manner  have  been  in  the  text 
instead  of  on  the  margin.  The  third  class  contained  the  readings 
that  were  just  as  good  as  those  in  the  text.  The  fourth  class 
contained  the  readings  that  were  not  so  good  as  those  in  the 
text.  And,  finally,  the  fifth  class  consisted  of  readings  that  were 
to  be  rejected.  In  the  book  of  Revelation  he  altered  nineteen 
passages  to  suit  the  manuscripts.  So  many  people  railed  at  his 
edition  that  he  published  a  "  Defence  of  the  Greek  Testament " 
in  German  at  the  end  of  a  harmony  of  the  evangelists,  and  by 
itself  in  Latin  at  Leiden  in  1737.  A  smaller  edition  offered 
only  the  text  and  the  readings. 


Wettstein,  Semler,  Grieseach. 

Among  those  who  did  collation  work  for  Bentley  was  Johann 
Jakob  Wettstein,  who  was  born  at  Basel  in  1693  and  died 
in  1754.      As  early  as  the  year  17 13   he  wrote  a  dissertation 


448  THE  TEXT 

about  the  various  readings  in  the  New  Testament.  Then 
he  visited  various  cities  in  Switzerland,  France,  and  England. 
In  the  year  171 7  he  was  made  deacon  in  Basel.  Having  pub- 
lished in  1 7 18  a  specimen  of  his  various  readings,  he  was 
at  once  charged  with  favouring  Socinianism.  After  a  long 
battle  he  was  put  out  of  his  office  in  1730.  About  then  he 
•published  a  prefatory  word  to  an  edition  of  the  Greek  New 
Testament,  in  Amsterdam,  in  which  city  he  had  a  professorship 
in  the  philosophical  faculty  m  view.  Having  vanquished  his 
antagonists  in  Basel  in  1732,  he  became  a  professor  at  Amsterdam 
in  1733.  His  great  edition  of  the  New  Testament  in  two 
volumes  appeared  at  Amsterdam  in  1751  and  1752.  It  contained 
also  the  letter  of  Clement  of  Rome  and  the  homily  of  Pseudo- 
Clement,  in  Syriac  and  Latin,  at  the  close  of  the  second  volume. 
Of  course,  he  had  to  print  a  common  text,  and  his  text  was  in 
the  main  the  Elzevir  text  His  critical  apparatus  was  the  first 
in  which  the  uncial  or  large  letter  manuscripts  were  regularly 
denoted  by  capital  letters  and  the  minuscle  or  small  letter 
manuscripts  by  Arabic  numbers.  This  edition  offered  by  far 
the  largest  critical  apparatus  for  the  text  of  the  New  Testament 
then  existing. 

Johann  Salomo  Semler  did  not  edit  an  edition  of  the  New 
Testament,  but  he  treated  of  the  Greek  manuscripts  thereof  in 
a  most  learned  manner  and  at  great  length  in  the  year  1765 
and  later.  The  name  of  the  book  in  which  he  discussed  the 
manuscripts  was  Hermeneutical  Preparation,  and  no  one  has 
apparently  suspected  the  character  of  its  contents.  It  may  be 
that  the  readers  of  the  title  took  it  for  an  elementary  book  and 
passed  it  by.  A  pupil  of  Semler  was  destined  to  do  great 
service,  and  to  make  for  himself  a  name  in  this  department. 
Johann  Jakob  Griesbach,  who  was  born  in  1745  and  died  in 
1812,  published  from  1774  until  1777  a  Greek  New  Testament. 
The  way  of  it  was  this.  In  the  year  1774  he  issued  the  three 
synoptic  Gospels  in  their  combination  with  each  other.  The 
Gospel  according  to  John  and  the  book  of  Acts  followed  in 
the  year  1775,  in  which  year  the  second  volume  with  the 
Epistles  and  Revelation  came  out.  And  then  in  1777  the 
synoptic  Gospels  were  published  at  full  length.  This  was  a 
complicated  way  of  preparing  a  copy  of  the  New  Testament. 
Griesbach    continued    to    collate   manuscripts   and   to   examine 


PRINTED   EDITIONS— HARWOOD  449 

and  use  the  collations  of  others.  After  a  number  of  years  he 
published  the  first  volume  of  a  new  edition  in  the  year  1796 
and  the  second  volume  in  1806.  The  critical  apparatus  here 
was  large,  but  not  so  large  as  Griesbach  might  have  made  it 
by  drawing  more  fully  upon  the  stores  brought  by  his  pre- 
decessors in  collating  and  in  editing.  David  Schulz  began  to 
make  a  new  edition  of  Griesbach's  New  Testament  in  the  year 
1827,  but  did  not  get  beyond  the  first  volume.  If,  however,  we 
wish  to  have  the  ripe  judgment  of  Griesbach,  we  should  not  take 
the  larger  edition  of  1 796-1 806,  but  the  small  edition  of  the  year 
1805.  To  this  small  edition  attaches,  if  I  am  not  mistaken,  a 
trifling  literary  interest  in  a  curious  way.  Its  text  was,  I  under- 
stand, used  in  printing  a  large  and  beautiful  edition  in  two  fine 
quarto  volumes,  and  for  a  half  a  century  this  edition  was  one 
of  the  favourite  theological  gifts  in  England,  especially  of  wealthy 
parishioners  to  their  clergymen. 


Edward  Harwood,  Matthai,  Birch,  Scholz. 

We  mentioned  a  moment  ago  the  Englishman  Mace.  Another 
Englishman,  Edward  Harwood,  who  was  born  in  1729  and 
died  in  1794,  was  a  Londoner  and  a  theologian.  He  broke 
thoroughly  out  of  the  bands  and  bonds  of  tradition  in  pre- 
paring an  edition  of  the  Greek  New  Testament.  A  certain 
preparation  for  his  work  had  been  made  by  a  learned  printer 
in  London,  named  William  Bowyer.  Johann  Jakob  Wettstein 
had  not  been  permitted  to  print  his  own  text,  but  had  followed 
therein  the  Elzevir  tradition,  and  placed  below  the  text  the 
readings  which  he  thought  to  be  the  proper  ones.  The  printer 
Bowyer  was  so  liberal  and  so  undertaking  that  he  seized  this 
opportunity  to  do  a  good  work.  He  had  already  published 
Mill's  edition  four  times,  but  Mill  had  also  used  a  poorer  text. 
Now  Bowyer  issued  a  two  volume  book  which  contained  in 
the  first  volume  the  Greek  New  Testament  almost  always  with 
the  readings  which  Wettstein  had  declared  to  be  the  best  ones. 
And  the  second  volume  was  for  that  day  still  more  daring,  for 
it  brought  a  collection  of  the  conjectural  readings  that  had  been 
suggested  for  the  text  of  the  New  Testament. 

Now  Harwood  went  still  further  in  his  work.  He  knew  nothing 
29 


450  THE  TEXT 

of  the  future  Codex  Sinaiticus,  and  there  were  then  no  scholars 
to  tell  him  how  valuable  the  Codex  Vaticanus  was,  and  his  keen 
discernment  led  him  to  turn  to  the  Codex  Bezse  for  the  Gospels 
and  for  Acts,  and  to  the  Codex  Claromontanus  for  the  Pauline 
Epistles.  Where  these  deserted  him,  he  appealed  chiefly  to  the 
Codex  Alexandrinus.  Eduard  Reuss,  who  in  the  year  1891  died 
at  Strassburg,  where  he  had  long  worked,  and  who  had  pursued  the 
most  painstaking  researches  in  the  line  of  the  printed  text  of  the 
Greek  New  Testament,  hit  upon  a  good  method  for  comparing  the 
readmgs  or  the  texts  of  the  editions  with  each  other.  He  picked 
out  a  thousand  passages  as  normal  passages  and  then  collated  the 
editions  at  those  points.  The  freedom  of  Harwood's  edition  is 
plain  when  we  learn  that  out  of  Reuss'  thousand  passages  there 
are  seven  hundred  and  eleven,  or  more  than  seventy  per  cent,  in 
which  Harwood  does  not  use  the  Elzevir  text.  Out  of  the 
thousand  passages  there  are  six  hundred  and  forty-three  in  which 
Harwood  agrees  with  Lachmann.  Reuss  counted  Harwood's  new 
readings,  and  did  not  name  as  new  the  ones  which  Griesbach  at 
about  the  same  time  had  preferred,  and  yet  he  found  two 
hundred  and  three  new  readings,  many  of  which  are  approved  of 
by  modern  critics.  That  was  a  very  good  showing  for  the  year 
1776,  and  was  quite  worthy  of  that  year  with  its  4th  of  July  on 
the  other  side  of  the  sea. 

Alas !  the  contemporaries  of  Harwood  as  well  as  of  Mace 
and  Bowyer  did  not  appreciate  the  freedom  that  this  edition 
placed  before  their  eyes.  Scrivener  called  Mace's  work  "un- 
worthy of  serious  notice  " ;  and  his  editor,  referring  to  Bowyer 
and  Harwood,  says  that  Scrivener  "  looked  for  greater  names." 
If  Mace,  and  even  the  learned  printer  Bowyer,  and  Harwood 
had  received  from  the  clergy  of  their  own  day  due  respect,  and 
if  Scrivener  and  Burgon  had  appreciated  and  commended  what 
these  men  did  in  those  times  that  were  so  perilous  for  daring 
scientific  work,  the  three  names  would  be  better  known,  and 
would  attain  at  least  to  such  greatness  as  various  other  names 
which  Scrivener  counted  fit  for  approving  notice. 

A  Thuringian,  Christian  Friedrich  Matthai,  who  was  born  in 
1744  and  died  in  181 1,  and  who  held  professorial  chairs 
successively  in  Moscow,  Meissen,  and  Wittenberg,  a  man  of  very 
keen  parts,  though,  we  regret  to  say,  inaccurate  in  his  views 
touching  the  inviolability  of  library  possessions,  did  a  great  deal 


PRINTED   EDITIONS— MATTHAI  451 

of  very  valuable  collating  of  manuscripts  of  Church  writers,  in 
particular  of  Chrysostom,  and  of  manuscripts  of  the  New 
Testament.  He  published  at  Riga  during  the  years  1782 
to  1788  the  New  Testament  in  Greek  and  Latin  in  twelve 
volumes  that  are  packed  full  of  valuable  material  drawn  from 
the  manuscripts.  A  guide  to  the  contents  of  these  volumes 
would  not  be  amiss,  seeing  that  their  arrangement  is  little  less 
than  chaotic.  The  Greek  text  is  of  no  great  importance,  because 
it  is  drawn  chiefly  from  young  and  inferior  manuscripts.  The 
Latin  text  is  taken  from  the  Demidow  manuscript  of  the 
Vulgate.  In  a  second  edition,  published  in  three  volumes  at 
Hof  in  1803  and  1805  and  at  Ronneburg  in  1807,  he  left  out 
the  Latin  text,  but  used  collations  of  several  new  manuscripts. 
It  was  much  to  be  regretted  that  Matthai  attacked  some  of  his 
predecessors  and  contemporaries — for  example,  Semler  and 
Griesbach — in  a  violent  and,  from  the  standpoint  of  courtesy, 
outrageous  way. 

Denmark  is  like  Weimar,  a  land  devoted  to  art  and  science. 
In  the  second  half  of  the  eighteenth  century  it  sent  out  a  number 
of  scholars  to  search  in  the  libraries  of  Europe  for  manuscripts 
of  the  Greek  New  Testament  and  to  collate  them.  The  real 
leader  was  Andreas  Birch,  who  was  born  in  1758  and  died 
in  1829.  He  published  in  the  year  1788  at  Copenhagen  the 
four  Gospels  in  Greek  from  Estienne  1550,  with  various  readings 
from  Danish,  Italian,  Austrian,  and  Spanish  libraries,  and  from 
three  Syriac  versions.  The  government  and  Birch  intended  to 
complete  the  New  Testament  in  the  same  stately  form,  but  a 
fire  in  the  printing-office  in  the  year  1795  destroyed  a  great  many 
copies,  and  as  well  the  paper  and  the  types  to  be  used  for 
the  edition.  After  this  great  loss  the  large  edition  was  given  up, 
and  Birch  published  the  various  readings  for  the  Acts  and 
the  Epistles  in  two  small  volumes,  to  which  he  also  added  one 
for  the  four  Gospels. 

The  Roman  Catholic  Church  has  thus  far  not  taken  an 
important  part  in  the  editing  of  the  text  of  the  New  Testament, 
although  the  first  editions  that  were  printed  were  done  before 
15 1 7.  Johannes  Martin  Augustinus  Scholz,  a  professor  at  Bonn, 
who  was  born  in  1794  and  died  in  1852,  was  a  very  diligent 
worker  in  this  department.  He  travelled  in  France  and 
Switzerland  and  Italy  and  Palestine  collating  manuscripts  most 


452  THE   TEXT 

industriously,  and  then  published  at  Leipzig  in  two  volumes,  in 
1830  and  1836,  a  Greek  New  Testament.  His  Greek  text 
was  modelled  largely  after  that  of  Griesbach,  especially  in 
the  second  volume.  His  critical  apparatus  then  gave  his 
collations  of  the  Greek  manuscripts  as  well  as  some  readings 
from  the  translations  of  the  text,  and  from  church  writers.  This 
collection  of  various  readings  was  and  is  still  to-day  very 
important.  The  habit  of  decrying  Scholz's  carefulness  in 
collation  appears  to  me  to  be  unjustifiable.  I  have  repeatedly 
compared  his  collations  with  the  originals,  and  found  them  to  be 
very  good. 

Carl  Lachmann. 

We  now  come  to  a  man  who  bears  in  one  respect  a  certain 
resemblance  to  Bentley,  in  that  he  was  a  great  philologian. 
Bentley  was,  however,  also  a  theologian,  as  every  professor  at 
Cambridge  and  Oxford  was  of  necessity  until  after  the  middle 
of  the  nineteenth  century.  I  know  of  no  previous  connection 
between  Carl  Lachmann,  of  whom  we  now  have  to  speak, 
and  theology.  He  was  a  classical  scholar  of  the  highest  rank, 
and  as  well  one  of  the  first  German  philologians,  so  that  his 
edition  of  Lessing  is  still  valuable.  He  began  his  work  upon 
the  New  Testament  by  a  small  edition  issued  at  Berlin  in 
1 83 1.  The  putting  forth  of  this  little  book  was  effected  in 
the  most  unfortunate  way.  It  was  an  unusual  example  of  the 
way  not  to  issue  a  book.  Either  Lachmann  had  not  reflected 
carefully  upon  the  possibilities  of  the  reception  of  the  book, 
or  he  had  overrated  the  influence  that  his  name  upon  the 
title-page  would  have  as  a  commendation  of  the  text  offered,  or 
he  had  underrated  the  conservative  inclinations  of  theologians 
and  the  power  that  they  could  exert  to  hinder  a  judicial  reception 
of  his  efforts.  Be  that  as  it  may,  he  published  the  book  in 
the  following  way.  In  the  most  important  scientific  theological 
quarterly  for  1830,  he  published  an  article  of  about  twenty-eight 
pages  describing  his  edition.  Now  that  was  all  very  well.  A 
number  of  thinking  men  will  there  have  read  his  words,  and 
have  known  what  his  intentions  were.  When  the  volume  itself 
came  out  in  1831  it  had  no  sign  of  a  preface  at  the  beginning. 
At  the  close  of  Revelation  the  reader  found  a  few  lines  that  said 


PRINTED   EDITIONS— LACHMANN  453 

in  effect  this  :  (a)  I  have  told  of  my  plan  in  a  more  convenient 
place,  namely,  in  that  journal,  (d)  I  have  followed  the  custom 
of  the  oldest  Eastern  Churches,  (c)  Where  that  was  uncertain 
I  have  laid  weight  upon  the  agreement  of  Italy  and  Africa. 
(d)  Where  all  was  uncertain,  the  margin  says  so.  (e)  Therefore 
I  had  no  use  for  the  Textus  Receptus,  but  I  now  add  its  readings 
here.  Accordingly  the  closing  pages  contained  the  readings 
of  the  Textus  Receptus. 

That  was  not  the  way  to  pubhsh  a  book.  He  could  not 
compel  everyone  who  bought  his  New  Testament  to  go  buy 
a  copy  of  that  number  of  that  journal  and  cut  out  the  twenty- 
eight  pages  as  a  preface  to  his  book.  The  text  differed  from 
the  commonly  used  texts,  and  it  brought  with  it  no  adequate 
explanation  of  its  reason  for  existence.  Why  should  the  theo- 
logians assume  that  this  philologian,  who  had  taken  a  fancy 
to  make  an  excursion  into  their  domains  and  to  lay  hands 
upon  their  sacred  text,  must  necessarily  have  done  so  with 
very  good  judgment  ?  The  probabilities  were  for  them  all 
upon  the  other  side,  and  they  said  so,  many  of  them  in  strong 
terms.  And  even  the  scholars  who  read  that  article  in  the 
journal  were  by  no  means  all  of  them  prepared  to  agree  with 
him.  To  us  to-day  what  he  says  is  much  more  palatable,  be- 
cause we  stand  at  a  very  different  point  in  the  development 
of  critical  science. 

Lachmann  did  not  give  up  his  new  line  of  work.  In  the 
years  1842  and  1850  he  published  in  two  volumes  a  large 
edition  both  of  the  Greek  and  of  the  Latin  text  of  the  New 
Testament.  Philipp  Buttmann,  the  son  of  the  great  Philipp 
Buttmann,  attended  to  the  Greek  part  of  the  critical  apparatus. 
All  the  rest  Lachmann  did.  The  text  was  much  the  same  as 
in  the  first,  the  small  edition.  One  of  the  difficulties  in  the 
way  of  the  reception  of  Lachmann's  text  was  that  from  Lach- 
mann's  point  of  view,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  it  was  neither  in- 
tended for  nor  adapted  to  reception  in  the  common  use  of 
that  word,  and  in  the  way  in  which  an  edition  of  the  New 
Testament  was  applied  by  the  average  owners  thereof.  Almost 
all  the  copies  of  the  Greek  New  Testament  that  were  sold  were 
bought  either  by  students  of  theology  to  be  used  in  following 
the  daily  lectures,  or  by  pastors  to  be  used  in  preparing  their 
sermons  and  their  theological  essays.     Lachmann's  edition  was 


454  THE  TEXT 

in  itself,  according  to  his  express  purpose,  what  we  might  call 
a  scientific  tool.  It  might  perhaps  be  called  a  bridge  that 
was  to  be  thrown  across  the  gap  separating  us  from  the  true 
text.  What  the  ordinary  buyer  of  a  Greek  New  Testament  wanted, 
what  the  student  needed  for  the  current  exercises  of  the  university, 
the  pastor  for  his  daily  work,  was  the  true,  real,  good  text,  the 
very  best  text  that  was  attainable. 

When,  then,  Lachmann  said :  "  I  am  not  yet  trying  to  find 
the  true  reading, — which  indeed  is  often  still  in  existence  in 
some  single  source,  but  just  as  often  has  been  totally  lost, — 
but  only  the  oldest  one  among  those  that  are  evidently  widely 
spread," — when  Lachmann  said  that,  he  puzzled  and  displeased 
his  buyers.  So  far  as  that  was  his  purpose,  Lachmann  should 
have  had  a  good  friend  w'ho  could  have  heard  his  plan  and 
then  said  :  "  My  dear  Lachmann,  that  is  a  very  fine  plan.  I 
do  not  doubt  that  you  will  finally  succeed  in  making  a  very 
good  text  of  the  New  Testament.  But,  as  you  say,  you  are 
not  yet  trying  to  get  the  true  text.  You  are  searching  for 
a  middle  text  which  will  lead  you  over  to  the  true  text. 
Now,  you  must  not  publish  this  middle  text.  Nobody  wants 
it.  It  is  worth  nothing  to  these  people  who  buy  the  Greek 
New  Testaments.  Keep  this  middle  text  in  your  portfolio, 
and  use  it  as  w^ell  as  you  can  to  help  you  in  the  determina- 
tion of  the  true  text.  When  you  have  found  the  true  text,  or 
when  you  have  gotten  as  near  to  the  true  text  as  you  can  get, 
then  publish  that."  That  is  the  way  in  which  a  good  friend 
might  have  saved  Lachmann  and  his  opponents  much  trouble. 
Lachmann  thought  that  he  could  get  back,  for  this  present 
bridging  purpose,  at  least  as  far  as  the  last  years  of  the  fourth 
century,  to  the  time  at  which  Jerome  revised  the  Latin  text. 

After  all,  however,  we  must  ask  what  Lachmann  really  did, 
or  first  of  all,  what  he  could  do.  The  answer  is,  that  the 
witnesses  that  he  had  in  his  hands  were  not  numerous  or  com- 
plete enough,  and  not  adapted  to  give  him  the  text  of  the 
end  of  the  fourth  century.  Fancy,  for  example,  the  wild  im- 
propriety of  using  Origen  as  a  witness  for  such  a  purpose. 
And  the  other  auxiliary  troops,  Italy  and  Africa,  were  as  little 
then  to  be  used  for  the  service  for  which  Lachmann  needed 
them.  That  is  one  thing :  Lachmann  could  not  do  what  he 
proposed  to  do.     Strangely  enough,  I  now  have  to  state  some- 


PRINTED   EDITIONS— TISCIIENDORF  455 

thing  that  seems  to  be  directly  opposed  to  much  of  what  I 
have  said  of  Lachmann's  work.  It  is  all  right  nevertheless. 
^^  hat  we  have  just  said  aimed  at  Lachmann's  plan  and  purpose. 
His  plan  was  not  the  right  one  for  a  New  Testament  that  was 
to  be  sold,  and  his  plan  was  not  possible  of  being  carried  out. 
And,  in  spite  of  all  that,  Lachmann's  text,  the  text  that  he 
actually  published,  was  a  very  good  one,  and  was  for  that  day 
very  well  fitted  to  be  used  not  only  by  students  but  also  by 
pastors.  Lachmann  was  an  exceptionally  good  philologian,  and 
his  skilful  hands  formed  the  good  text  in  spite  of  him,  so  that 
instead  of  constituting  a  bridge  he  did  much  towards — what 
shall  I  say? — rebuilding  or  unearthing  that  which  was  on  the 
farther  side  of  the  stream  of  forgetfulness  across  which  the  bridge 
was  to  be  thrown.  His  art  and  his  insight  led  him  to  determine 
a  text  which  largely  belongs  to  the  second  century,  and  modern 
criticism  accepts  a  great  many  of  the  readings  which  he  approved. 
Lachmann  was  better  than  he  had  in  that  article  declared  that 
he  would  be.  His  name  will  long  be  held  in  honour  in  textual 
criticism,  even  though  neither  he  nor  anyone  else  ever  used 
his  text  as  a  means  of  passing  on  to  the  true  text. 


CONSTANTIN    TiSCHENDORF. 

It  was  above  observed  that  a  note  of  Lachmann's  in  that 
article  in  the  journal  of  1830  had  given  Tischendorf  the  idea 
of  going  to  Paris  and  preparing  editions  of  the  Codex  Ephraemi 
and  of  the  Codex  Claromontanus.  In  that  way  Tischendorf 
really  owed  his  first  manuscript  work  to  Lachmann's  indirect 
advice,  to  the  words  that  Lachmann  addressed  to  the  scholars 
at  Paris.  This  circumstance  might  have  led  to  an  attachment 
between  the  two  that  would  certainly  have  been  an  advantage 
to  the  younger  man.  But  a  quick  word  of  Lachmann's  barred 
any  such  connection,  and  excited  in  Tischendorf  bitter  feelings 
that  only  passed  away  after  a  long  series  of  years.  The 
way  of  it  was  this.  Tischendorf  finished  at  the  beginning  of 
October  in  the  year  1840  a  small  edition  of  the  New  Testament 
dated  1841,  and,  habilitating  at  once  as  privatdozent  at  Leipzig, 
started  off  on  that  journey  to  Paris.  His  New  Testament,  which 
was  provided  with  a  fairly  large  critical  apparatus,  was  kindly 


45^  THE  TEXT 

received  in  general,  and  David  Schulz,  the  professor  at  Breslau, 
who  had  published  one  volume  of  a  renewed  edition  of  Griesbach's 
Greek  New  Testament,  was  particularly  friendly. 

Lachmann,  on  the  contrary,  took  an  unfavourable  view  of 
Tischendorfs  youthful  efforts,  and  apparently  did  not  suspect  in 
the  least  that  the  young  editor  had  set  out  to  do  much  and 
good  work  in  this  line.  Accordingly,  in  the  preface  to  the  first 
volume  of  his  large  edition,  which  appeared  while  Tischendorf 
was  still  working  in  the  libraries  of  the  West,  Lachmann  dis- 
posed of  Tischendorfs  New  Testament  with  the  curt  remark : 
"  For  that  edition,  if  the  truth  is  to  be  spoken,  is  from  cover 
to  cover  a  mistake" — "tota  peccatum  est."  It  will  be  conceded 
by  everyone  that  those  words  were  not  calculated  to  awaken 
agreeable  feelings  in  Tischendorfs  mind.  He  returned  the  com- 
pliment, as  was  quite  natural,  by  writing  some  very  sharp  things 
about  Lachmann's  edition,  especially  laying  stress  upon  the  fact, 
which  was  undeniable,  that  Lachmann  did  not  carry  out  his  own 
principles  with  any  accuracy.  I  am  glad  to  say  that  before 
his  death  he  came  to  feel  and  write  more  kindly  with  respect  to 
Lachmann's  merits. 

In  that  very  year,  1842,  Tischendorf,  who  was  at  Paris,  made 
an  edition  that  I  really  think  was  a  total  mistake,  and  Lach- 
mann's words,  if  they  had  been  aimed  at  the  edition  I  now  have 
in  view,  would  have  hit  the  nail  on  the  head.  At  Paris,  Tischen- 
dorf published  in  a  French  publishing  house  a  Greek  text  of 
the  New  Testament  which  corresponded  in  the  main  to  his 
Greek  text  at  Leipzig  dated  a  year  earlier.  No  one  could  object 
to  that,  if  his  Leipzig  publisher  did  not.  It  was  dedicated  to  the 
well-known  scholar  and  statesman  Francois  Pierre  Guillaume 
Guizot.  That  was  an  edition  that  did  no  harm.  Probably,  as 
the  result  of  some  scientific  conversations  with  Roman  Catholic 
clergymen  at  Paris,  the  plan  was  formed  of  constructing  a  Greek 
text  which  should  correspond  so  far  as  possible  to  the  Latin  text 
of  the  Vulgate.  Following  that  plan,  Tischendorf  published  such 
an  edition  and  dedicated  it  to  the  archbishop  of  Paris,  Denis 
Auguste  Affrey.  Now,  it  seems  to  me  that  that  was  a  mistake. 
Tischendorf  was  bent  on  doing  good  scientific  work,  on  finding 
out  as  well  as  he  could,  by  going  back  to  the  earliest  attainable 
period,  what  was  the  best  text  of  the  New  Testament.  He  should 
therefore  not  have  put  his  name  on  a  book  of  this  kind.     The 


PRINTED   EDITIONS— TISCHENDORF  457 

thing  had  an  almost  ludicrous  issue.  Tischendorf  was  forced  to 
say  on  the  title-page  that  he  had  taken  advantage  of  the  help  of 
a  Roman  Catholic  clergyman  named  Jager.  It  was  not  very  long 
before  Tischendorf  s  name  was  remanded  to  the  second  place  on 
the  title-page,  and  Jager  took  the  credit  of  the  edition  to  himself. 
I  wish  he  had  had  it  from  the  first.  Happily,  that  edition  was 
only  a  parenthesis  in  Tischendorfs  scientific  work. 

The  three  editions  thus  far  named  were  not  numbered,  but 
when  Tischendorf  seventeen  years  later  came  to  numbering  his 
large  editions  he  regarded  these  three  as  the  first,  second,  and 
third  in  the  order  in  w^hich  I  have  spoken  of  them.  No 
one  of  these  editions  was  of  great  importance.  The  next  edition 
was  an  important  one.  It  is  the  one  which  he  afterwards 
counted  as  the  fourth.  It  was  published  at  Leipzig  in  the  year 
1849,  and  named  on  the  title-page  as  the  second  Leipzig  edition. 
The  preface  filled  sixty-nine  pages,  and  the  critical  apparatus 
was  a  very  full  one.  In  the  following  year,  1850,  Tischendorf 
published  a  handy  edition  of  the  text  in  the  Bernhard  Tauch- 
nitz  publishing-house,  afterwards  called  the  fifth  edition.  This 
was  issued  not  only  alone,  but  also  in  union  with  the  Hebrew 
Old  Testament  of  Theile.  It  contained  almost  exactly  the  same 
text  as  the  edition  of  1849,  and  had  the  Elzevir  readings  below 
the  text.  It  w^as  reprinted  in  the  year  1862  with  the  same 
text  but  with  a  new  preface,  and  in  the  year  1873  the  text  of 
the  eighth  great  edition  was  inserted  in  it  and  the  readings  of 
the  Sinaitic  manuscript.  Oskar  von  Gebhardt  took  up  this 
edition  and  corrected  it  with  his  scrupulous  care,  adding  in  a 
larger  form  the  readings  of  Tregelles  and  of  Westcott  and  Hort, 
and  in  a  smaller  form  those  of  Westcott  and  Hort  alone.  In 
the  larger  form  he  also  combined  it  with  Luther's  German 
text.  The  edition  that  Tischendorf  afterwards  counted  as  the 
sixth  was  one  that  he  published  at  first  as  a  triglot  with 
a  Latin  and  a  German  text  in  the  year  1854,  and  then  alone 
in  the  year  1855.  This  became  the  favourite  edition  for 
students,  and  was  called  the  "academic"  edition.  In  the 
year  1873  ^^^  ^^^^  of  the  eighth  great  edition  was  inserted 
in  it.  These  editions  of  the  years  1850  and  1854  were  of  no 
moment  for  the  development  of  textual  criticism,  save  in  so  far 
as  they  contributed  to  spread  the  text  which  the  edition  of 
1849  ^^^^   determined,  and   at   a    later  ptriod    the  text  of  the 


458  THE  TEXT 

eighth  edition.  The  edition  of  the  four  Gospels  in  the  form  of  a 
synoptical  or  combined  text  which  was  issued  in  1851  need  not  be 
described  at  length.  Tischendorf  had  done  much  for  the  spread 
of  the  Greek  New  Testament,  having  published  before  he  came 
to  the  seventh  edition  more  than  fifteen  thousand  copies  of  it. 

In  the  year  1859  his  first  very  large  edition  appeared,  and 
that  with  the  name  "The  seventh  larger  critical  edition,"  while  a 
smaller  form  with  a  much  shortened  critical  apparatus  was  called 
"The  seventh  smaller  critical  edition."  It  must  be  kept  in  mind 
that  Tischendorf  at  that  time  had  neither  the  Codex  Sinaiticus 
nor  the  more  exact  readings  of  the  Codex  Vaticanus.  In  the 
earlier  part  of  the  text,  in  the  four  Gospels  he  seems  to  have 
doubted  whether  he  had  done  right  to  follow,  to  such  an  extent 
as  he  had  done  in  the  year  1849,  the  so  scantily  supported  ancient 
text.  The  Gospels,  therefore,  in  this  seventh  edition,  show  a 
closer  affinity  to  the  so-called  Received  Text  than  they  did  in  the 
fourth  edition  of  the  year  1849.  But  in  the  Epistles  it  is  clear 
that  the  ancient  text  had  regained  its  supremacy  in  his  mind,  and 
they  are  further  removed  from  the  Received  Text  than  they  had 
been  in  the  year  1849.  The  fact  that  this  seventh  edition  in  the 
Gospels  agreed  to  so  great  an  extent  with  the  Received  Text 
caused  it  to  be  much  sought  in  England.  Long  after  the  issue 
of  the  eighth  edition  many  British  theologians  clung  tenaciously 
to  the  seventh.  This  seventh  edition  brought  out  the  fullest 
critical  apparatus  that  had  ever  been  printed.  The  prolegomena 
bore  no  proportion  to  the  text  and  to  the  apparatus.  A  slight 
comparison  shows  that  they  were  for  the  most  part  merely  taken 
over  from  the  edition  of  1849,  which  was  much  more  limited  in 
its  scope.  Bentley's  proposals  were  evidently  inserted  to  fill  up 
the  pages.  The  fact  was  that  at  the  close  of  the  printing  of  the 
text,  at  which  point  of  time  Tischendorf  should  have  properly 
had  at  least  a  year  free  for  the  preparation  of  the  prolegomena, 
he  received  from  the  Emperor  of  Russia  the  desired  pecuniary 
and  moral  support  necessary  for  a  new  journey  to  Mount  Sinai. 
Under  such  circumstances  it  was  not  strange  that  he  simply 
reprinted  the  no  longer  sufficient  prolegomena  of  the  fourth 
edition,  with  trifling  alterations  and  additions,  and  hurried  away 
to  the  East. 

The  eighth  larger  critical  edition  was  published,  the  Gospels 
in   1864  and  the  rest  of  the  text  in   1872.     For  this  edition 


PRINTED  EDITIONS— TISCHENDORF  459 

Tischendorf  had  received  a  strong  impulse  towards  the  ancient 
text.  He  had  found  and  edited  the  Codex  Sinaiticus,  and  had 
secured  much  more  accurate  and  full  knowledge  of  the  text  of  the 
Codex  Vaticanus,  to  say  nothing  of  less  important  witnesses.  He 
felt  that  he  was  now  fully  justified  in  returning  to  his  earlier  pre- 
dilections, and  he  declared  openly  his  substantial  agreement  with 
the  principles  of  Bentley  and  Lachmann  and  his  conviction  that 
it  was  necessary :  "to  turn  away  entirely  from  the  text  that 
tradition  has  placed  in  our  hands,  from  the  Byzantine  text  which 
has  been  unconditionally  preferred  since  the  time  of  Erasmus, 
and  instead  of  that  to  constitute  the  text  of  the  second  century 
as  it  is  witnessed  to  by  the  documents,  with  all  possible  putting 
aside  of  one's  own  opinion."  Thus  the  text  of  this  eighth  edition 
departed  still  more  widely  from  the  Received  Text.  It  has  been 
complained  that  Tischendorf  paid  in  this  edition  far  too  great 
respect  to  the  text  of  the  Codex  Sinaiticus.  If  anyone  turns  to 
the  years  1859  to  1863,  during  which  Tischendorf  was  busy 
publishing  two  editions  of  this  manuscript,  and  during  which  his 
eyes  and  mind  were  to  such  a  great  extent  bent  upon  the  text  of 
this  manuscript,  the  high  character  of  which  can  only  be  doubted 
by  those  who  are  not  acquainted  with  it, — if  anyone  consider 
these  circumstances  it  will,  I  think,  be  plain  to  him  that 
Tischendorf  must  have  been,  would  have  had  to  be,  more  than 
human  not  to  feel  a  special  liking  for  this  text  found  by  him  and 
thus  almost  learned  by  heart.  And  nevertheless  it  is  not  the 
case  that  he  follows  this  manuscript  blindly.  He  has,  on  the 
contrary,  often  not  followed  its  first  hand,  and  that  in  places  in 
which  others  would  have  followed  it.  There  should,  moreover, 
be  a  further  word  added  in  justice  to  Tischendorf.  He  was 
always  ready  to  learn,  always  ready  to  ask  to  have  the  faults  of 
previous  publications  corrected,  always  ready  to  consider  testimony 
judicially.  It  will  be  remembered  that  he  was  struck  with  palsy 
soon  after  the  publication  of  the  second  volume  of  this  edition, 
and  passed  away  a  little  over  a  year  later  without  having  been 
able  to  resume  work.  For  myself,  I  do  not  doubt  in  the  least 
that  if  Tischendorf  had  lived  a  few  years  longer  he  would  himself 
have  changed  some  of  the  readings  of  which  complaint  has  been 
made.  I  have  perhaps  said  more  about  Tischendorf  than  the 
plan  of  this  book  would  warrant,  but  I  feel  sure  that  many  will 
wish  to  have  this  information  about  him. 


460  THE  TEXT 


Samuel  Prideaux  Tregelles,  Scrivener. 

England  has  a  special  interest  in  the  next  editor  whom  we  have 
to  mention,  Samuel  Prideaux  Tregelles,  whose  life  and  works  show 
what  can  be  effected  under  all  manner  of  untoward  circumstances, 
in  spite  of  poverty,  opposition,  obloquy,  and  ill-health,  if  a  man 
has  an  iron  will  and  feels  sure  that  God  is  backing  him.  He 
was  born  in  1813,  two  years  before  Tischendorf,  and  died  a  year 
later  than  he,  in  1875,  so  that  the  two  were  strictly  contemporaries. 
But  their  lives  were  only  alike  in  the  years  that  they  covered  and 
in  the  kind  of  work  that  they  did.  All  else  was  different. 
Tischendorf  lived  and  worked  in  the  sunshine  of  good  fortune, 
success,  and  praise.  Tregelles  lived  and  worked  under  a  cloud 
of  difficulties,  reviled  and  hindered,  and  when  at  the  last  his  work 
began  to  receive  the  long  merited  acknowledgment  his  health 
was  so  much  shattered  that  he  could  not  finish  his  one  great 
edition. 

Tregelles  should  have  somewhere  in  England  a  monument  as 
rare  as  his  devotion  to  the  New  Testament  was.  He  it  was  who 
almost  alone  in  England  fought  for  the  displacement  of  the 
Received  Text.  Before  his  death,  Alford  and  Westcott  and 
Hort  took  up  the  battle.  It  is  in  a  scientific  way  interesting  to 
observe  that  Tischendorf  seems  to  have  in  some  cases  delayed 
his  parts  of  the  eighth  edition  until  he  could  see  the  correspond- 
ing part  of  Tregelles'  New  Testament.  Tregelles  published  in 
1844  the  Revelation  in  Greek  with  a  new  English  translation  and 
with  various  readings,  he  having  determined  the  text  according 
to  ancient  authorities.  Four  years  later  he  published  his  pro- 
posals for  an  edition  of  the  New  Testament  in  Greek  and  Latin, 
the  Greek  text  to  be  drawn  from  ancient  authorities,  the  Latin 
text  of  Jerome  from  the  Codex  Amiatinus.  The  text  with  the 
critical  apparatus  came  out  in  six  parts  between  1857  and  1872. 
In  the  meantime,  however,  a  stroke  of  paralysis  had  in  the  year 
186 1  impeded  his  work,  a  second  stroke  following  in  the  year 
1870.  B.  W.  Newton  helped  him  with  the  Revelation,  and 
A.  W.  Streane  published  select  passages  from  his  previous  works 
as  a  preface,  and  copious  additions  to  the  critical  apparatus.  In 
preparing  this  edition  Tregelles  had  worked  enormously,  visiting 
the  continent  three  times  and  collating  numerous  manuscripts  in 


PRINTED   EDITIONS— TREGELLES  461 

various  languages,  Greek,  Latin,  and  Syriac.  He  also  published 
the  Codex  Zacynthius  in  1861,  and  wrote  two  most  excellent 
books  about  the  text,  one  of  which  formed  the  fourth  volume 
of  Home's  Introduction  in  the  tenth  edition  in  1856,  and  the 
eleventh  in  1863, — the  other  was  An  Account  of  the  Printed 
Text  which  appeared  in  1854.  He  was  not  only  industrious,  but 
also  accurate  and  careful.  His  judgment  was  sound.  Unfortun- 
ately his  text  of  the  Gospels  was  completed  before  the  Codex 
Sinaiticus  was  published,  and  before  the  Codex  Vaticanus  was 
better  known.  Had  this  not  been  the  case  he  would  certainly  in 
his  text  have  agreed  to  a  still  greater  extent  with  the  eighth  edition 
of  Tischendorf.  This  circumstance,  and  the  further  consideration 
that  the  latter  part  of  his  work  was  often  less  accurate  than  it 
would  have  been  had  he  been  well,  deprive  his  text  as  text  of  a 
permanent  value.  He  would  at  the  time  of  his  death  have  read 
the  text  differently  in  a  multitude  of  passages.  That,  however, 
should  not  diminish  the  gratitude  of  theologians  towards  him  for 
his  faithful  labours. 

Henry  Alford  published  at  London  in  the  years  1849  to  1861 
a  Greek  New  Testament  in  four  volumes,  with  some  various 
readings  and  with  a  commentary.  It  was  his  purpose  at  first, 
when  he  issued  the  Gospels  in  1849,  only  to  set  forth  a  text 
for  the  moment,  but  he  gave  up  that  thought  in  the  second 
volume  which  came  out  in  the  year  1852.  Now  and  then  he 
made  himself,  or  he  obtained  from  friends,  new  collations  of 
manuscripts.  His  text  is  nearer  to  that  of  Tregelles  than  to 
Tischendorf  s. 

Frederick  Henry  Ambrose  vScrivener,  teacher  and  clergyman 
in  Cornwall,  and  then  vicar  of  Hendon  near  London,  published 
Estienne's  text  again  and  again  from  the  year  1859  onwards 
in  handy  volumes  with  readings  from  Elzevir  {7iot  from  Beza), 
Lachmann,  Tischendorf,  and  Tregelles.  I  say :  not  from  Beza. 
What  he  called  Beza's  New  Testament  was  clearly  something 
else,  but  something  that  he  later  could  tell  nothing  about.  He 
said  to  me  personally  that  he  wished  that  he  had  never  seen  the 
book.  He  also  published  in  1881  the  Greek  text  used  by  the 
English  revisers  of  161 1,  with  the  readings  which  commended 
themselves  to  the  revisers  of  1881.  His  Plain  Introduction  to 
the  Criticism  of  the  New  Testament  in  four  editions,  from  1861 
to    1894,  was   the  English    handbook    of  textual   criticism.     In 


462  THE  TEXT 

the  year  1859  he  published  the  Codex  Augiensis.  He  also 
published  the  Codex  Bezae  in  1864.  In  the  same  year  he 
issued  a  collation  of  the  Codex  Sinaiticus,  and  in  1875  Six 
Lectures  on  the  Text  of  the  New  Testament.  But  his  great 
industry  was  turned  largely  to  the  collation  of  manuscripts.  The 
collation  of  twenty  came  out  in  1853,  and  fifty  more  appeared 
in  the  edition  of  the  Codex  Augiensis.  A  few  further  collations 
appeared  in  Adversaria  Critica  Sacra,  issued  two  years  after  his 
death,  but  as  if  he  still  were  alive ;  it  should  have  remained  in 
manuscript.  Scrivener  came  to  see  before  he  passed  away  that 
the  Received  Text  could  not  be  supported  so  unconditionally  as 
he  had  once  thought.  But  he  expressed  himself  less  distinctly 
in  public,  moved,  I  think,  largely  by  a  kind  consideration  for  his 
friend  and  staunch  adherent  John  William  Burgon,  whose  devotion 
to  that  text  scarcely  knew  any  bounds.  Burgon  did  a  great  deal 
of  work  in  searching  out  manuscripts,  and  he  published  a  very 
learned  treatise  upon  the  closing  verses  attached  to  the  Gospel  of 
Mark.  It  was  a  pity  that  he  only  published  his  notes  about 
manuscripts  in  The  Guardian  newspaper.  Would  that  more  of 
the  clergy  could  be  induced  to  work  as  Scrivener  and  Burgon 
worked  in  furthering  the  text  of  the  New  Testament. 

Thomas  Sheldon  Green,  once  a  fellow  of  Christ's  College  at 
Cambridge,  was  of  a  liberal  mind.  He  published  a  Course  of 
Developed  Criticism  in  1856,  treating  more  than  two  hundred 
passages  in  a  very  judicious  manner.  The  Twofold  New  Testa- 
ment appeared  in  1865  and  its  Appendix  about  1871.  William 
Kelley  published  the  Greek  text  of  Revelation  with  a  new 
English  translation  and  with  a  critical  apparatus  in  i860.  It  is 
interesting  to  find  that  John  Brown  McClellan,  who  published  in 
1875  the  first  volume  of  a  new  English  translation  of  the  New 
Testament  from  a  new  Greek  text,  regarded  the  Codex  Sinaiticus 
and  the  Codex  Vaticanus  as  very  bad  manuscripts.  In  America 
one  of  the  men  who  occupied  himself  most  intensely  with  the 
Greek  text  of  the  New  Testament  was  Ezra  Abbot,  but  he 
expended  his  efforts  largely  upon  the  books  and  essays  of 
other  people,  and  published  only  a  few  short  essays  himself. 
It  was  he  who  was  the  chief  representative  of  textual  criticism 
in  the  New  Testament  Company  of  Revisers  in  America  in 
the  years  1872-1881. 


PRINTED  EDITIONS— WESTCOTT  AND   HORT        463 


Westcott  and  Hort. 

Brooke  Foss  Westcott  and  Fenton  John  Anthony  Hort,  both 
members  of  the  University  of  Cambridge,  Westcott  later  bishop 
of  Durham,  did  more  than  anyone  else  ever  did  to  place  the 
history  of  the  text  of  the  New  Testament  on  a  sound  basis. 
Hort  passed  away  in  1892,  and  Westcott  in  1901.  Westcott 
pubhshed  a  book  introductory  to  the  study  of  the  Gospels  in  185 1, 
and  a  book  upon  the  canon  of  the  New  Testament  that  will  long 
remain  standards.  For  twenty-eight  years  they  worked  together 
upon  an  edition  of  the  New  Testament.  With  an  openness  and 
a  modesty  which  has  seldom  or  never  been  equalled  they  sent 
out  their  edition  in  a  preliminary  form  in  parts,  in  the  years  1871 
to  1876,  to  a  number  of  scholars  asking  for  comments.  Finally, 
in  the  year  1881  they  published  their  work  in  two  volumes,  one 
containing  the  text,  the  other  the  introduction.  In  the  text  they 
agree  to  a  large  extent  with  Tregelles  and  with  Tischendorf.  The 
text  of  Tregelles  would  have  been  much  nearer  theirs  if  Tregelles 
had  had  the  readings  of  the  Sinaiticus  and  of  the  Vaticanus  for 
the  Gospels.  And  their  nearness  to  Tischendorf  would  have 
been  clearer  if  Tischendorf  had  in  some  way  indicated  the 
readings  which  were  almost  as  good  as  the  ones  which  he 
actually  put  in  the  text,  or,  we  may  say,  if  he  had  explained  to 
us  how  the  case  stood  in  such  passages  as  he  was  scarcely  able 
to  settle  with  satisfaction,  and  in  which  he  therefore  took  one  of 
the  readings,  seeing  that  he  could  not  take  two  at  once,  and  let 
the  other  one  go.  Westcott  and  Hort  give  such  readings  in  their 
margin.  Had  Tischendorf  done  likewise  we  should  have  seen 
more  distinctly  how  near  the  two  editions  are  to  each  other. 
These  editors  hesitated  to  place  in  a  popular  edition  readings 
that  were  not  found  in  witnesses  to  the  text,  but  that  proceeded 
alone  from  conjecture.  They  insisted,  however,  rightly  upon  the 
necessity  of  conjecture,  and  pointed  out  in  their  edition  the 
places  which  in  their  judgment  allowed  of  no  solution  by  refer- 
ence to  the  manuscripts  and  other  sources,  and  which  therefore 
demanded  conjectural  emendation.  It  is  not  necessary  for  me 
to  say  here  what  Westcott  and  Hort  thought  about  the  history  of 
the  text,  seeing  that  I  have  good  sense  enough  for  the  present  to 
accept  their  conclusions  and  to  work  upon  them  until  something 


464  THE  TEXT 

better  comes,  and  that  I  shall  therefore  give  their  views  essentially 
when  I  later  give  my  own.  Thus  far  the  larger  part  of  the 
objections  made  to  their  conclusions  may  be  found  in  their  own 
book. 

Bernhard  Weiss,  of  Berlin,  who  has  for  more  than  half  a 
century  been  studying  the  New  Testament  and  publishing  works 
upon  its  different  parts,  viewing  it  from  various  standpoints,  has 
in  many  of  these  works,  in  the  commentaries  and  in  the  dis- 
cussions of  synoptical  questions  in  particular,  treated  of  textual 
(questions.  During  all  the  years  he  continually  busied  himself 
with  the  text.  Finally,  in  the  years  1893  to  1900  he  published 
Researches  in  Textual  Criticism,  with  the  determination  of  the 
text,  and  in  the  year  1902  the  text  was  again  issued  in  another 
form  with  a  short  commentary.  It  has  often  been  said  that  the 
critics  of  the  text  would  in  certain  cases  have  settled  upon  other 
readings  than  those  chosen  by  them  if  they  had  been  exegetes. 
It  may  be  a  question  how  far  the  exegete  should  dominate  the 
critic  of  the  text,  even  when  they  are  combined  in  one  person. 
But  in  any  case  it  is  of  exceedingly  great  value  that  a  scholar 
who  has  for  years  been  commenting  upon  the  text  of  the  New 
Testament  should  give  us  his  mature  views  as  to  the  determina- 
tion of  the  true  text  thereof. 

Eberhard  Nestle,  of  Maulbronn,  who  published  an  interesting 
Introduction  to  the  Greek  New  Testament  in  1897,  has  done 
something  incredible  in  the  field  of  the  textual  criticism  of  the 
New  Testament.  The  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society  has 
for  years  held  with  the  utmost  tenacity  to  the  Received  Text  of 
the  New  Testament.  It  did  finally  allow  Franz  Delitzsch  some 
years  ago,  in  his  Hebrew  New  Testament,  to  encroach  upon  the 
Received  Text,  but  that  was  in  Hebrew  and  was  little  noticed. 
Years  and  years  ago  I  planned  an  appeal  to  that  society  to  urge 
upon  it  a  timely  change.  But  I  never  sent  it  off.  So  far 
as  I  can  remember,  everyone  to  whom  I  then  mentioned  it 
considered  the  case  hopeless.  It  was  desirable  for  the  cause 
of  the  Bible,  of  the  Church,  and  of  science  that  the  great 
apparatus  of  that  society  should  cease  to  deluge  Europe  with 
this  imperfect  text.  Nestle  has  effected  the  change.  He,  with 
the  self-denying  help  especially  of  Paul  Wilhelm  Schmiedel,  of 
Zurich,  published  in  Stuttgart  an  edition  of  the  Greek  New 
Testament  in  the  year  1898,  and  he  won  the  British  and  Foreign 


PRINTED  EDITIONS  465 

Bible  Society  over  to  take  this  edition  into  its  own  hands.  I  do 
not  like  the  way  in  which  he  decides  upon  the  text  in  his  edition, 
but  that  is  a  matter  of  little  moment  compared  with  the  successful 
breaking  of  the  dominion  of  the  Received  Text.  The  plan  that 
I  wished  to  suggest  to  the  society  was  to  have  as  soon  as  feasible 
the  best  possible  text  prepared,  and  to  name  that  text  on  the  title- 
page  the  text  of — say  1905  or  19 10,  or  whatever  the  year  may  be 
— and  to  keep  to  that  text  with  that  year  on  the  title-page,  of 
course  on  the  upper  part  of  the  page,  because  the  year  of 
publication  must  be  in  its  usual  place  below,  until  it  was  clear 
that  new  discoveries  or  new  researches  made  a  change  in  the 
text  desirable.  Then  the  new  text  should  have  been  put  in  as 
the  text  of  the  new  year  and  again  retained  till  a  change  became 
necessary.  In  this  way  the  society  and  the  world  would  have 
the  state  of  the  text  before  its  eyes,  and  would  have  the  necessity 
of  occasional  change  in  mind.  I  need  not  say  that  there  is  no 
reason  to  suppose  that  changes  of  importance  would  frequently 
have  to  be  made  after  the  determination  of  a  good  text  at  the 
beginning.  A  see-saw  hither  and  thither  at  the  beck  of  every 
edition  does  not  seem  to  me  to  be  in  any  wise  proper.  But  I 
am  deeply  thankful  to  Nestle  for  his  deed. 

The  latest  work  in  textual  criticism  is  that  which  is  in  process 
of  issue  at  the  hands  of  Hermann  von  Soden  in  Berlin,  who  by 
the  laudable  great  heartedness  of  Fraulein  Elise  Koenigs  was 
enabled  to  send  out  a  number  of  scholars  to  examine  manu- 
scripts in  various  libraries.  The  material  gathered  together  must 
be  immense.  Thus  far  two  large  volumes  of  discussions  have 
appeared,  containing  also  a  list  of  the  Greek  manuscripts.  What 
the  text  will  be  no  one  yet  knows.  The  author's  prospectus 
showed  that  he  either  had  not  read  or  had  not — appreciated — 
what  Tischendorf  and  what  Westcott  and  Hort  had  written  about 
their  texts.  The  conclusion  or  the  probability  would  seem  to 
be,  that  if  the  fairly  intelligible  statements  of  two  contemporary 
or  nearly  contemporary  scholars  of  the  nineteenth  century  proved 
so  impossible  of  comprehension  as  to  be  misstated  by  two 
centuries  in  the  proclamation  of  the  merits  of  the  coming 
edition,  the  difficult  entanglements  of  textual  tradition  in  the 
first,  second,  third,  and  fourth  centuries  would  in  the  end 
scarcely  prove  to  the  editor  so  clear  as  they  seemed  to  him  at 
the  first  blush  to  be.     Everyone  is  awaiting  the  issue  with  great 


466  THE  TEXT 

interest.  In  the  meantime  all  are  astounded  at  the  unbounded 
working  power  of  the  author.  Those  who  are  acquainted  with 
the  text  of  the  New  Testament,  or  at  least  many  of  them,  regret 
that  much  of  the  energy  of  the  editor  thus  far  has  been  expended 
in  operating  with  the  story  of  the  adulteress  in  John  y^^-S^^, 
seeing  that  the  history,  the  fortunes,  and  the  vicissitudes  of  these 
verses,  which  have  only  the  most  frail  connection  with  the  text 
of  the  New  Testament,  cannot  in  any  wise  offer  a  norm  or  an 
example  for  the  history  of  the  text  proper.  It  is  like  arguing  as 
to  the  growth  of  the  oak  from  the  consideration  of  a  twig  of 
mistletoe.  May  the  author  and  editor  reach  an  end  and  a 
clearness  and  a  certainty  as  to  the  difficult  problems  of  textual 
history  far  beyond  what  his  present  words  lead  textual  critics  to 
look  for,  and  somewhere  near  what  his  extraordinary  labours 
deserve. 


46; 


IX. 

THE  EXTERNALS  OF  THE  TEXT. 

If  we  could  suppose  ourselves  appointed  as  a  committee  to 
print  for  the  first  time  the  books  of  our  New  Testament,  one 
of  the  questions  that  would  meet  us  might  be  the  general  title. 
That  would  be  the  very  tip  end  of  the  beginning  of  textual 
criticism,  in  criticising  the  external  addition  to  the  text  which 
stands  at  the  greatest  distance  from  it.  In  Exodus  2^  we  find 
"the  book  of  the  covenant,"  which  can  then  have  been  but  a 
very  short  book  indeed.  By  the  time  we  reach  2  Kings  232-3 
"the  book  of  the  covenant"  will  have  been  much  larger.  At 
that  day  the  Israelites  might  well  have  spoken  of  the  book  of  the 
Old  Covenant,  of  the  covenant  from  ancient  centuries.  When 
Jesus  preached  and  when  the  apostles  went  out  to  the  world 
with  His  message  to  men,  it  was  quite  natural  that  the  thought  of 
a  New  Covenant  should  arise,  as  in  Hebrews  9^^  The  Greek 
word  for  covenant,  SiaOriKy],  meant  also  "testament."  The 
Latin  lawyer  of  Carthage  called  such  a  legal  document  an 
"  instrument,"  using  his  technical  word.  In  the  early  Church  the 
Christians  gradually  came  to  transfer  the  name  of  the  covenant 
to  the  book  which  told  of  the  covenant.  And  with  the  other 
word  they  spoke  of  the  Old  Testament  and  of  the  New 
Testament.  In  the  New  Testament  the  first  part  consisted  of 
"  the  Gospels  "  or  "  the  Gospel  Instrument,"  and  the  latter  part 
of  "  the  Apostle  "  or  "  the  Apostolic  Instrument." 


Order  of  Books. 

The  order  in  which  we  place  the  books  of  the  New  Testament 
is  not  a  matter  of  indifference.  Every  Christian  should  be 
familiar  with  these  books,  and  should  know  precisely  where  to 
find  each  book.  Every  New  Testament  should  have  the  books 
in  precisely  the  same  order,  the  order  of  the    Greek    Church, 


468  THE  TEXT 

which  in  this  case  is  of  right  the  guardian  of  this  ancient  literature. 
The  proper  order  is,  I  think  :  First,  the  Four  Gospels  :  Matthew, 
Mark,  Luke,  and  John.  Second,  the  Book  of  Acts.  Third,  the 
Catholic  Epistles :  James,  First  and  Second  Peter,  First,  Second, 
and  Third  John,  and  Jude.  Fourth,  the  Epistles  of  Paul : 
Romans,  First  and  Second  Corinthians,  Galatians,  Ephesians, 
Philippians,  Colossians,  First  and  Second  Thessalonians, 
Hebrews,  First  and  Second  Timothy,  Titus,  and  Philemon. 
And  fifth,  the  book  of  Revelation.  The  order  of  the  four 
Gospels  to  which  we  are  used  is  by  far  the  prevailing  order. 
Sometimes,  however,  especially  in  connection  with  a  Latin 
tradition,  we  find  the  order  Matthew,  John,  Luke,  Mark.  This 
order  seems  to  proceed  from  the  wish  to  give  the  two  apostles 
the  leading  place,  and  then  to  give  the  larger  Gospel  according 
to  Luke  the  preference  before  Mark.  That  last  order  of  Luke 
and  Mark  would  point  to  the  early  period  at  which  Paul,  and 
therefore  his  companion  Luke,  were  especially  cherished.  The 
reason  given  in  a  Latin  manuscript  for  having  John  after  Matthew 
is  found  in  the  closing  perfection  of  his  book.  Druthmar  of  the 
ninth  century  offers  a  reason  for  each  way  of  arranging  the 
Gospels.  The  usual  order  places,  according  to  him,  one  apostle 
at  the  beginning  and  the  other  at  the  end,  so  that  the  two  non- 
apostles  in  between  them  may  take  their  authority  from  the  two 
apostles  who  encase  them.  And  as  for  the  two  apostles  in 
front,  he  asked  Euphemius,  a  Greek,  why  they  were  put  there, 
and  he  replied,  "  Like  a  good  farmer  who  yokes  his  best  oxen  in 
front."  Once  or  twice  the  order  John,  Matthew,  Luke,  Mark 
occurs.  That  looks  as  if  it  might  have  been  taken  from  the 
books  of  Gospel  lessons,  with  John  at  Easter,  Matthew  at 
Whitsuntide,  Luke  at  Michaelmas,  and  Mark  in  Lent. 

The  current  order  of  the  Catholic  Epistles  is  the  usual  one  in 
the  ancient  Church.  Occasionally,  however,  we  find  a  different 
order.  Most  frequently  the  change  has  been  made  to  place 
Peter  in  front,  and  then  the  order  of  the  other  three  varies 
according  to  the  fancy  of  the  scribe.  We  have  Peter,  James, 
John,  Jude ;  and  Peter,  James,  Jude,  John ;  and  Peter,  John,  Jude, 
James  ;  and  Peter,  John,  James,  Jude ;  and  Peter,  Jude,  James, 
John. 

In  the  Epistles  of  Paul,  with  which  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  is  closely  united,  the  place  of  precisely  this  Epistle  is 


THE  EXTERNALS  OF  THE  TEXT  469 

almost  the  only  thing  that  varies.  The  Greek  order  is  that  which 
places  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  between  Thessalonians  and 
Timothy,  and  that  is  the  order  to  which  we  should  hold.  The 
Latin  order  places  Hebrews  after  Philemon.  It  would,  of  course, 
be  a  satisfaction  to  us,  in  our  firm  conviction  that  the  Epistle  is 
not  from  Paul,  to  put  it  after  his  Epistles.  But  we  must  keep  to 
the  old  order  or  we  shall  have  the  New  Testament  turned  upside 
down  in  connection  with  every  fancied  discovery  as  to  authorship 
and  date  of  books. 

Chapters. 

When  we  approach  the  single  books  we  meet  the  question  as 
to  the  division  into  chapters.  We  do  not  know  who  determined 
the  large  chapters  found  in  the  Greek  manuscripts,  but  the  very 
lack  of  remarks  about  them  leads  to  the  supposition  that  they 
were  the  work  of  an  early  age.  These  larger  chapters  in  the 
Gospels  are  of  an  altogether  phenomenal  oneness  and  steadfast- 
ness. There  are  68  in  Matthew,  48  in  Mark,  83  in  Luke,  and  18 
in  John.  They  may  be  left  out  in  a  manuscript,  especially  if  the 
manuscript  be  intended  rather  for  liturgical  use,  for  then  it  is 
desirable  that  there  shall  be  no  divisions  and  no  headings  to 
catch  the  eye  save  those  that  are  strictly  needed  for  the  lessons 
to  be  read.  In  general  the  number  of  the  chapter  is  put  in  the 
margin  opposite  the  beginning  of  the  chapter,  where  also  a 
larger,  perhaps  a  coloured,  letter  may  be  found.  Then  the 
inscription  giving  the  contents  of  the  chapter  is  placed  in  the 
upper  or  in  the  lower  margin.  These  inscriptions  usually  begin 
with  the  word  "  about "  or  "  concerning," — for  example,  the  second 
chapter  in  Matthew  is  "  About  the  children  who  were  murdered," 
TTcpi  Twv  dvatpeOei/TiDv  TraiStW.  We  can  see  at  once  that  these 
chapters  have  their  textual  character,  when  I  observe  that  this 
very  chapter  has  three  main  readings ;  for  we  may  find  instead  of 
TratStco;/  the  word  Trat'Swv  or  the  word  vt/ttiW,  and  I  have  also 
seen  Ppifjunv.  These  chapters  are  of  very  different  lengths. 
Take,  for  example,  two  chapters  in  Matthew.  Chapter  55 
contains  a  dozen  lines  only,  and  chapter  56  over  ninety. 


470  THE  TEXT 


EusEBius'  Harmony  of  Gospels. 

The  Jews  were  in  the  habit  of  comparing  scripture  with 
scripture,  and  the  Christians  who  found  in  their  four  Gospels  four 
accounts  of  Jesus  as  a  teacher  were  forced  to  compare  these 
accounts  with  each  other  and  to  note  their  agreement  or  their 
failure  to  agree  w^ith  each  other.  Ammonius  tried  to  write  the 
parallel  sections  alongside  of  each  other.  Eusebius  invented  a 
better  plan.  He  left  the  four  Gospels  each  in  its  own  proper 
shape.  But  he  proceeded  to  mark  off  in  each  certain  sections 
or,  as  they  were  called,  chapters.  The  reason  for  the  length  of 
the  chapters  was  found  in  the  relation  of  the  four  Gospels  to 
each  other.  Let  us  suppose,  for  example,  that  we  are  reading  a 
verse  which  is  found  alike  in  all  four  Gospels.  Now,  the 
"  chapter "  in  which  that  verse  is  will  continue  until  something 
comes  up  that  is  not  in  all  four  Gospels.  Should  the  new 
"  chapter  "  happen  to  contain  material  found  alone  in  the  Gospel 
in  question,  very  good,  this  "chapter"  will  continue  just  so 
long  as  the  words  are  found  nowhere  else.  The  moment  that 
something  occurs  that  is  found,  let  us  say,  in  two  Gospels,  in  this 
one  and  any  other  one,  there  that  "chapter"  stops  and  a  new 
one  begins.  In  this  way  Eusebius  divided  up  sections  or  little 
chapters  in  all  four  Gospels,  making  in  Matthew  355,  in  Mark 
233,  in  Luke  342,  and  in  John  232.  Some  are  very  short,  once 
there  are  three  in  a  single  one  of  our  verses.  And  some  are 
very  long,  especially  the  sections  in  John  which  have  no  parallel. 
This  division  is  the  basis  of  the  work  of  Eusebius. 

Then  he  prepared  lists,  canons,  of  the  various  possible  or 
actual  combinations  of  these  chapters,  and  thus  of  the  Gospels 
with  each  other.  There  were  ten  of  them.  The  first  list  con- 
tained the  numbers  of  the  sections  in  which  all  four  Gospels 
agreed  with  each  other.  The  second  list  or  canon  gave  the 
numbers  of  the  sections  in  which  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke 
coincided  with  each  other.  The  third  canon  offered  the  sections 
in  which  Matthew,  Luke,  and  John  agreed.  The  fourth  canon 
has  the  sections  in  which  Matthew,  Mark,  and  John  go  together. 
The  fifth  canon  is  occupied  by  the  sections  in  which  only  Matthew 
and  Luke  agree.  The  sixth  canon  is  devoted  to  the  sections  in 
which  Matthew  and  Mark  are  alike.     The  seventh  canon  shows 


THE  EXTERNALS   OF   THE  TEXT  47 1 

in  which  sections  Matthew  and  John  are  of  one  mind.  The 
eighth  canon  numbers  the  sections  in  which  Luke  and  Mark 
unite.  The  ninth  canon  tells  us  in  which  sections  Luke  and 
John  alone  are  found.  And  finally,  the  tenth  canon  recounts 
the  sections  in  which  each  Gospel  stands  totally  alone.  A\'e 
have  now  the  chapters  or  sections  numbered  in  each  Gospel 
from  one  up  to  the  last  section  in  that  Gospel,  and  the  numbers 
standing  on  the  margin,  so  that  we  can  find  any  section  in  any 
Gospel  in  a  moment.     And  then  we  have  those  ten  canons. 

The  way  Eusebius  brought  the  two  together  and  completed 
his  system  was  this.  He  put  on  the  margin  in  red  ink  under  every 
number  of  a  section  the  number  of  the  canon  in  which  it  be- 
longed. Thereby  he  effected  at  once  two  desirable  things.  The 
reader  saw  instantly  whether  the  section  was  in  any  other  Gospel 
or  not.  And  if  it  was  in  any  other  Gospel  or  Gospels  he  saw 
at  once  which,  for,  of  course,  every  reader  soon  knew  by  heart 
which  Gospels  were  represented  in  each  canon.  That  was  the 
one  good  thing  effected.  The  second  thing  was  that  by  turning 
to  that  canon  at  the  front  of  the  volume  the  reader  could  at 
once  find  the  number  of  the  section  he  had  just  read  in  the 
one  Gospel,  and  would  find  alongside  of  it  the  numbers  of 
the  like  sections  in  the  other  Gospels  in  which  it  was  found. 
Turning  to  these  sections,  he  could  compare  all  most  accurately. 
Here  is  the  first  line  of  the  first  canon  : 

Mt         Mk         Lk         Joh 
8  2  7  10 

and  that  means  that  the  eighth  section  in  Matthew  corresponds 
to  the  second  in  Mark,  to  the  seventh  in  Luke,  and  to  the  tenth 
in  John.  This  was  a  most  ingenious  contrivance,  and  quite 
worthy  of  a  place  in  modern  copies  of  the  Gospels.  In  some 
manuscripts  the  matter  was  made  much  easier  for  the  reader,  and 
the  lists  of  canons  were  left  for  more  general  comparisons.  For 
in  these  books  the  parallel  sections,  for  the  sections  which 
occurred  upon  any  given  page,  were  given  on  the  lower  margin 
of  the  page,  so  that  one  could  turn  at  once  to  the  companion 
sections  in  the  other  Gospels.  This  arrangement  is  often  found 
in  Armenian  manuscripts.  Eusebius  explained  his  system  in  a 
letter  to  Carpianus,  and  this  letter  forms   the  opening  part  of 


472  THE  TEXT 

many  of  the  manuscripts  of  the  Gospels.  Of  course,  the  canons 
follow  upon  the  letter,  and  the  frames  in  which  the  canons  are 
written  are  often  beautifully  ornamented  in  colours,  with  pillars 
and  arches,  and  above  the  arches  birds  of  various  feather. 


EUTHALIUS. 

For  the  other  books  of  the  New  Testament  there  was  no 
need  of  any  arrangement  of  that  kind,  for  they  contained  no 
like  accounts,  no  chapters  that  needed  to  be  compared  with  each 
other.  There  is  for  the  Acts,  the  Catholic  Epistles,  and  the 
Pauline  Epistles  a  whole  series  of  accompaniments  to  make  the 
use  of  their  text  easier.  We  find  chapters  with  descriptive 
headings.  Sometimes  there  are  under-divisions  in  these  chapters, 
which  again  have  headings  to  designate  their  contents.  Then 
these  chapters  are  not  only  found  on  the  margin,  but  they  are 
also  collected  in  lists  at  the  beginning  of  each  book,  affording 
an  easy  view  of  its  contents.  The  Church  lessons  are  divided 
off.  The  days  to  which  they  belong  are  added.  The  necessary 
introductory  words  for  each  lesson  are  put  into  the  margin 
beside  the  place  where  it  begins.  And  the  quotations  or 
"testimonies,"  as  they  are  called,  are  numbered,  have  their 
source  set  on  the  margin  at  the  side  of  the  number,  and  are 
gathered  in  lists  at  the  beginning  of  the  books.  Add  to  all  this 
a  preface  for  each  book,  a  preface  for  the  Pauline  Epistles  in 
general,  a  discussion  of  Paul's  journeys  and  his  martyrdom,  and 
it  will  be  apparent  that  this  matter  is  of  considerable  extent. 
The  name  connected  with  all  this  is  Euthalius,  who  is  also  called 
in  some  manuscripts  the  bishop  of  Sulke.  But  Euthalius  does 
not  pretend  to  have  done  all  the  work  himself.  Parts  of  it  were 
probably  at  his  date,  say  before  the  end  of  the  fourth  century, 
already  parts  of  a  long  forgotten  past,  parts  were  done  by  a 
previous  writer  whom  he  avoids  naming  and  who  may  have  been 
Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  then  much  eschewed  as  a  dangerous 
heretic ;  many  things  were  done  by  Euthalius  himself,  and  some 
things  may  well  have  been  added  or  changed  by  one  or  more 
later  hands.  As  for  the  text  itself,  Euthalius  marked  it  off  in  a 
careful  way  for  the  lessons,  that  is  to  say  for  reading  purposes, 
adding  the  accents.      Perhaps   he  wrote  the  text  also  in  sense 


THE  EXTERNALS  OF  THE  TEXT  473 

lines,  lines  that  served  to  show  the  subdivisions  of  thought,  as 
our  punctuation  does. 

The  book  of  Revelation,  which  was  so  diligently  read  in  the 
earliest  period  of  the  Church,  and  later  so  carefully  kept  out 
of  the  books  of  lessons  and  so  much  pushed  aside,  received,  so 
far  as  we  know,  no  chapter  division  save  that  which  its  commen- 
tator Andrew  of  Caesarea  in  Cappadocia  made.  He  went  about 
this  division  in  a  sentimental  way.  Instead  of  asking  what 
material  was  in  the  book,  and  into  how  many  parts  it  could  be 
most  properly  divided,  he  took  the  number  of  the  elders  sitting 
on  the  twenty-four  thrones  around  the  throne  in  Rev.  4*  and 
divided  Revelation  into  twenty-four  words  or  discourses.  He 
further  reflected  then  that  the  person  of  each  of  the  twenty-four 
elders  was  properly  threefold,  for  Andrew  was  a  trichotomist,  and 
that  each  consisted  of  body  and  soul  and  spirit.  With  these 
three  divisions  of  the  discourses  he  made  then  of  the  whole  book 
seventy-two  chapters,  three  times  twenty-four.  There  is  nothing 
like  mathematics  for  a  dreamer. 


Modern  Chapters. 

All  of  those  chapters  are  different  from  our  chapters.  The 
origin  of  our  chapters  has  been  assigned  to  Hugo  of  St.  Caro. 
The  real  divider  appears  to  have  been  the  cardinal  Stephen 
Langton,  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  who  died  in  1228. 
Probably  he  made  the  division  in  the  year  1204  or  1205.  This 
division  never  came  regularly  into  the  Greek  manuscripts  of  the 
New  Testament.  It  is,  so  far  as  I  can  remember,  only  rarely 
added  in  late  manuscripts  written  in  the  West.  But  many  of  the 
manuscripts  written  in  the  West  have  only  the  regular  Greek 
chapters,  while  some  have  both  the  Greek  chapters  and  these 
I^tin  chapters.  When  those  chapters  had  been  made  the 
theologians  wished  for  a  still  smaller  division  so  as  to  be  able  to 
refer  more  accurately  to  passages  which  they  needed  to  quote. 
About  the  year  1243  ^  number  of  learned  men  under  Hugo 
of  St.  Caro  made  a  concordance  to  the  Bible,  and  Hugo  divided 
each  chapter  into  smaller  sections  by  using  the  capital  letters 
A  B  C  D  E  F  G,  although  he  did  not  insist  upon  having  all  the 
seven  sections  if  the  chapter  was  not  very  long.     A  Latin  Bible, 


474  THE  TEXT 

the  translation  of  Santes  Pagnini,  was  printed  at  Lyons  in  1528, 
and  divided  into  verses,  but  these  verses  were  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment very  different  from  ours. 


Verses. 

Our  verses  of  to-day  did  not  appear  in  the  first  printed  editions 
of  the  Greek  New  Testament,  but  they  did  first  appear  in  a  Greek 
New  Testament.  The  way  that  these  verses  came  to  be  made 
reminds  us  of  Hugo  of  St.  Caro,  who  made  those  A  B  C  D 
sections  for  his  concordance.  Robert  Estienne  was  about  to 
make  a  concordance  of  the  New  Testament, — his  son  Henri 
pubHshed  it  finally  in  1594, — and  therefore  wished  for  a  small 
division  of  the  text.  He  set  about  the  work,  and  did  the 
most  of  it,  as  his  son  tells  us,  on  a  journey  on  horseback  be- 
tween Paris  and  Lyons.  Henri  uses  the  words  "while  riding," 
"inter  equitandum,"  and  it  has  sometimes  been  supposed  that 
he  actually  did  it  while  jogging  and  joggling  along  the  road  upon 
the  back  of  his  steed.  It  may  be  that  he  had  a  very  quiet 
horse,  and  that  he  could  sometimes  have  marked  divisions 
while  the  horse  was  walking  leisurely  along.  Yet  I  do  not 
think  that  he  did  that,  or  that  his  son  Henri  says  that  he  did 
that.  It  seems  to  me  to  be  more  likely  that  the  words  "while 
riding "  simply  mean  that  he  did  it  in  the  breaks  of  this  long 
ride.  When  he  got  up  in  the  morning  he  may  have  done 
something  before  he  set  out.  During  the  morning  he  may  have 
rested  a  while  at  a  wayside  inn,  and  certainly  at  noon  he  will 
have  done  so.  And  again  at  night  he  doubtless  drew  out  his 
little  pocket  edition  and  "divided"  away  until  it  was  time  to 
sleep.  This  verse  division  was  first  printed  in  Robert  Estienne's 
fourth  edition  of  the  Greek  New  Testament,  which  appeared  in 
two  small  volumes  in  the  year  155 1  at  Geneva.  In  this  edition 
the  Greek  text  was  in  the  middle  column,  while  Erasmus'  Latin 
translation  was  on  one  side  and  Jerome's  Vulgate  on  the  other. 
Robert  Estienne  had  in  mind,  as  he  tells  us  in  the  preface,  not 
only  the  coming  concordance,  but  also  the  convenience  of  this 
edition.  That  was  in  showing  easily  and  clearly  what  words  of 
each  of  those  two  translations  corresponded  to  given  words  of 
the  Greek  text. 


THE   EXTERNALS  OF  THE  TEXT  475 

The  first  whole  Bible  with  our  verses  in  it  was  an  octavo 
Latin  Bible,  a  Vulgate,  that  Robert  Estienne  published  at  Geneva 
in  the  year  1555.  The  earliest  New  Testament  in  English 
that  was  divided  into  our  verses  was  William  Whittingham's 
translation  issued  at  Geneva  in  1557.  A  very  different  text  of 
the  New  Testament  came  out  in  the  first  complete  Bible  in 
English  with  our  verses,  which  was  the  Geneva  Bible,  the 
Geneva  translation,  finished  in  the  year  1560.  The  first  edition 
of  the  Greek  New  Testament  that  had  the  verses  divided  up  in 
the  text  was  the  regrettable  "  Textus  Receptus  "  Elzevir  edition 
of  1633.  The  verses  have  gradually  here  and  there  been 
changed  in  various  editions.  That  is  much  to  be  deplored,  and 
it  is  much  to  be  wished  that  in  continuation  of  the  work  of 
Ezra  Abbot,  showing  where  false  divisions  have  crept  in,  all 
theologians  would  correct  their  New  Testaments  in  whatever 
language  according  to  the  one  standard  of  Estienne's  edition 
of  1551. 

Punctuation. 

In  the  oldest  manuscripts  there  was  very  little  punctuation. 
In  the  more  carefully  written  manuscripts  an  occasional  period 
was  about  all.  Even  the  words  were  all  written  together,  just 
as  they  are  all  spoken  together.  Now  and  then  a  sentence  began 
a  new  line.  That  was  all.  Gradually  more  signs  crept  in ;  the 
comma,  and  the  double  point  or  colon  were  used  more 
frequently.  Sometimes  a  single  point  was  used  in  three  positions 
startlingly  separated  from  each  other.  The  greatest  distinction 
was  the  point  high  up*  The  next,  but  less  strong,  was  in  the 
middle*  And  the  third  and  weakest,  about  of  the  effect  of  a 
comma,  was  low  down,  A  sign  of  interrogation  is,  I  think, 
rarely  found  before  the  ninth  century.  Of  course,  we  cannot 
count  the  points  between  every  two  words  in  the  Codex 
Augiensis,  and  sometimes  in  the  Codex  Bornerianus,  as  being 
precisely  punctuation,  very  much  pointed,  punctured,  and 
punctuated  as  those  texts  are. 

It  is  often  said  that  we  cannot  use  the  Greek  manuscripts 
of  the  New  Testament  as  a  norm,  a  rule,  or  as  a  special  help 
in  deciding  about  the  proper  punctuation  of  the  text.  It  seems 
to  me  that  this  is  going  a  little  too  far.      There  is  a  fair  con- 


476  THE  TEXT 

nection  between  Greek  and  Latin  and  English  and  German 
punctuation.  Yet  there  is,  if  I  am  not  altogether  mistaken, 
at  least  a  shade  of  nationality  and  of  language  in  the  mere 
technical  signs  and  in  the  method  of  using  them,  and  I  do 
not  feel  sure  that  it  would  be  doing  justice  to  the  original 
dress  of  the  New  Testament  for  European  scholars  to  punctuate 
without  reference  to  Greek  tradition.  It  is  true  that  many 
manuscripts  are  badly  punctuated,  just  as  they  are  badly  spelled. 
But  there  are  manuscripts  that  are  carefully  punctuated,  and  I 
think  that  their  testimony  should  be  used,  and  used  expressly. 
They  are,  in  fact,  the  only  guides  that  we  have  as  to  the  original 
views  of  the  disposition  of  the  words. 

To  my  mind  it  is  not  a  sufficient  reply  to  this  to  say  that, 
owing  to  the  point-lessness  of,  the  lack  of  punctuation  in,  the 
earlier  manuscripts,  these  later  manuscripts  which  have  a  punc- 
tuation have  no  hold  in  their  own  past.  That  reply  appears  to 
overlook  the  fact  that  the  "traditional"  reading  of  the  given 
passages  never  ceased  to  be  practised,  that  is  to  say,  that  the 
reading  which  was  continual  was  exercised  in  the  traditional 
way,  giving  to  the  passages  the  force  and  the  direction  and  the 
connection  that  earlier  times  gave  to  them,  and  that  this  traditional 
reading,  this  punctuation  by  word  of  mouth,  was  then  brought 
into  a  permanent  form  in  the  written  punctuation  of  the  manu- 
scripts, and  should  be  at  least  looked  into  and  respectfully 
considered  in  the  constitution  of  our  texts.  The  circumstance 
that  this  will  call  for  some  careful  collation  of  certain  manuscripts 
that  were  long  since  thought  to  be  disposed  of  cannot  be  con- 
sidered a  reason  for  neglecting  the  point.  Difficulty  of  doing 
a  thing  is  not  what  decides  whether  it  should  be  done  or  not. 
It  would  be  of  value,  I  think,  if  someone  should  be  so  self- 
denying  as  to  give  a  large  amount  of  special  attention  to  this 
matter.  If  he  prove  what  I  have  here  said  to  be  all  wrong,  that 
is  at  least  a  gain.     The  field  will  then  be  clearer. 


Spelling. 

The  care  of  the  text  brings  wuth  it  the  question  of  spelling. 
When  the  form  of  the  words  is  brought  under  consideration  a 
similar  objection  to  that  referred  to  a  moment  ago  is  often  made. 


THE   EXTERNALS   OF   THE   TEXT  477 

We  are  told  that  the  spelling  in  the  manuscripts  was  altogether 
arbitrary,  and  determined  by  the  wisdom,  sense,  ignorance,  or 
caprice  of  the  scribes  during  the  centuries  of  transmission. 
Granting  that  there  is  a  certain  truth  in  the  uncertain  tradition 
as  to  forms  of  words,  I  should  reply  again  that  we  have  nothing 
else  by  which  to  go,  no  other  due  and  proper  basis  for  theories 
about  the  original  spelling  of  Paul's  Epistles,  for  example,  to 
take  a  special  case,  than  what  we  find  in  the  oldest  manuscripts 
in  our  hands.  We  are  constantly  receiving  older  documents. 
It  would  be  an  interesting  inquiry  as  to  whether  some  day  we 
shall  be  able  to  see  so  clearly  into  the  early  conditions  as  to 
distinguish  between  the  spelling  of  the  different  scribes  who 
wrote  at  Paul's  dictation.  In  the  other  direction  it  might  be 
asked  whether  we  could  find  such  traces  of  a  uniform  and 
early  spelling  as  to  decide  that  Paul  had  always  himself  looked 
through  the  Epistles  written  at  his  dictation  and  had  corrected 
the  spelling,  conforming  it  to  his  own  standard.  Then  arises 
the  question  as  to  the  spelling  which  the  writer  of  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews  favoured.  Paul  and  Luke  were  probably  much 
together.  It  would  be  possible  that  the  like  measure  of 
education  which  they  appear  to  have  enjoyed  should  have  led 
them  to  use  the  same  spelling,  the  same  forms  of  the  words 
applied  to  their  Christian  work  or  to  common  life. 

Even  if  textual  critics  should  declare  positively  that  no  trace 
of  the  original  spelling  could  now  be  detected,  or  ever  would  be 
likely  to  be  discovered,  it  would  be  necessary  to  ask  how  the 
spelling  should  be  settled.  Given  witnesses  contain  forms  that 
certainly  are  old,  and  that  do  not  agree  with  the  spelling  of  the 
Attic  National  Academy.  Conceding  that  these  are  necessarily 
not  Pauline,  or  Johannean,  or  Lucan,  they  nevertheless  may  carry 
with  them  a  local  and  a  temporal  colouring  that  we  should  do 
wrong  to  deprive  the  New  Testament  of.  It  might  not  always 
be  easy  to  decide  what  forms  to  sanction  in  special  cases,  but 
the  difficulty  in  deciding  is  no  reason  for  refusing  to  consider 
these  forms. 

Not  as  a  logical  sequence  to  the  foregoing,  but  as  a  neigh- 
bouring problem,  we  should  have  to  determine  whether  any 
editor  has  a  right  to  say  that  the  New  Testament  is  in  so 
great  a  measure  one  book,  and  emerges  within  so  brief  a  period 
of  time  from   so  limited  an  area,   and  from   circles   of  such 


478  THE  TEXT 

homogeneous  composition  that  it  would  be  absurd  to  pay  the 
least  attention  to  differences  of  spelling  in  different  parts  thereof, 
even  if  they  should  be  proved  to  be  original.  It  must  be 
remembered  that  in  the  Greek  New  Testament  there  can  be  no 
question  as  to  confusing  ill-educated  persons  by  lack  of  uniformity 
in  the  spelling,  seeing  that  only  educated  people  take  the 
volume  in  hand.  It  seerr]s  to  be  the  most  reasonable  and  the 
most  modest  course  to  follow,  so  far  as  any  thing  of  the  kind 
can  be  found,  the  habits  of  the  best,  the  earliest,  the  most 
unbiassed  manuscripts. 


479 


X. 

EARL  Y  HISTOR  V  OF  TEXT. 

For  the  textual  critic  who  sets  about  making  an  edition  of 
the  text  the  method  of  constituting  that  text  is  one  of  the 
weightiest  possible  things  about  which  he  has  to  decide.  A 
philologian  comes  to  him  and  declares  the  decision  to  be  a  very 
simple  one.  The  critic  of  the  text  has  but  to  take  the  best 
manuscript — and  which  is  the  best  manuscript  is  not  difficult  to 
say — and  to  print  its  text,  adding  from  other  manuscripts  an 
occasional  various  reading.  In  the  case  of  many  of  the  authors 
with  which  the  classical  philologian  has  to  do,  such  a  course  is 
the  only  one  open  to  a  scholar,  inasmuch  as  there  are  often  but 
few  manuscripts  in  existence,  and  inasmuch  as  these  few  are 
usually  so  related  to  each  other  as  to  make  the  choice  of  the 
best  one  an  easy  matter.  A  lazy  man  might  say  :  Unfortunately, 
that  is  not  the  case  with  the  New  Testament.  The  textual 
critic  says :  Thank  God,  our  sacred  volume  has  a  far  different 
testimony  from  that,  and  a  better  one.  We  have  already  seen 
what  the  kinds  of  witnesses  are  and  how  numerous  they  are, 
the  thousands  of  Greek  manuscripts,  the  thousands  of  manuscripts 
of  the  translations,  the  hundreds  or  perhaps  thousands  of 
manuscripts  of  the  church  writers.  We  cannot  throw  that 
testimony  all  or  almost  all  away,  and  say  that  half  a  dozen  of 
the  manuscripts  are  enough  for  us.  We  are  bound  in  duty  to 
make  as  good  a  use  as  possible  of  the  talent  given  to  us,  and 
neither  to  bury  it  nor  to  throw  it  away.  Yet  such  a  myriad  of 
witnesses  is  puzzling  and  overwhelming.  No  one  person  can 
command  them  all  or  force  them  all  to  yield  their  treasures  up 
to  him.  Combined  work  is  necessary.  Work  must  follow  upon 
work.  Succeeding  scholars  must  stand  on  the  shoulders  of 
preceding  scholars.  Yet  we  cannot  put  off  constituting  the  text 
until  centuries  of  combined  effort  have  exhausted  the  materials 
in  our  hands.  We  must  be  reading  the  New  Testament  and 
preaching  from  it  and  explaining  it,  and  we  need  for  that  purpose 


480  THE  TEXT 

a  text,  and  always  at  each  moment  the  best  text  available.  The 
textual  critic  must  be  ever  settling  texts  as  he  goes  along.  It 
is,  like  all  human  work,  but  temporary.  A  later  time  will  make 
a  better  text,  and  a  still  later  time  a  still  better  one. 


Classes  of  Text. 

In  the  effort  to  cope  with  these  multitudes  of  witnesses, 
whether  for  the  purpose  of  deciding  instantly  upon  a  text  for 
the  present,  or  for  the  purpose  of  preparing  the  gradual  complete 
exhaustion  of  the  testimony,  it  is  necessary  to  do  upon  a  large 
scale  the  very  thing  that  the  classical  philologian  did  with  his 
more  limited  material  upon  a  small  scale.  We  must  try  to 
classify.  Every  scholar  who  combines  tw^o  manuscripts  and 
thereby  makes  one  out  of  them  advances  the  work  to  be  done. 
Every  group  of  manuscripts  that  we  know  thoroughly  forms 
a  kilometre  stone  that  marks  progress  in  the  long  journey. 
Such  combination  of  witnesses,  beginning  at  the  single  witnesses 
and  aiming  at  their  unification  and  simplification,  is  the  basis  of 
all  good  work  in  textual  criticism.  It  forms,  even  strange  as  that 
may  seem,  the  basis  for  the  work  at  the  precisely  opposite  end 
of  the  line  of  research  and  of  combinative  reflection.  Glad  as 
we  are  to  see  individual  manuscripts  dissolving  into  each  other, 
our  gaze  also  goes  out  towards  the  great  masses  of  witnesses,  and 
wishes  to  see  them  gather  together  into  a  few  great  societies  of 
known  character  from  which  we  may  look  to  receive  such  and 
such  testimony. 

Kinds  of  Classes. 

It  would  indeed  seem  to  the  untutored  mind  at  the  first 
glance  as  if  such  inquiries  must  be  unnecessary.  We  spoke  at 
the  outset  of  the  copying  of  manuscripts.  Should  we  assume 
that  the  early  Christians  in  the  to  them  most  natural  following  up 
of  Jewish  copying  habits,  of  the  Jewish  rules  for  copying  the  law 
in  particular,  copied  every  word  most  cautiously  and  counted  its 
letters,  it  would  appear  next  to  impossible  that  classes  of  text 
should  arise,  and  most  of  all  that  they  should  arise  in  that 
earliest  period  during  which  the  connection  with  Judaism  was 


EARLY   HISTORY  OF  TEXT  48 1 

Still  so  near.  This  view  overlooks  two  important  considerations. 
The  one  touches  Judaism,  and  we  can  be  brief  with  it.  The 
extraordinary  pains  of  the  Masora  with  the  copying  of  the  law 
was  probably  a  thing  of  a  much  later  date  than  the  earliest  copies 
of  the  manuscripts  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament.  There- 
fore we  cannot  presuppose  that  this  painful  exactness  had  any 
effect  upon  the  earliest  Christian  copyists  or  scribes.  The  other 
consideration,  however,  touches  the  Christian  side,  and  goes  to 
preclude  all  such  thoughts  of  Masoretical  accuracy.  In  the  first 
place,  the  most  of  the  early  Christian  copyists  were  probably  not 
particularly  well  versed  in  the  art  of  writing  and  copying.  And 
in  the  second  place,  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  were  not 
recognised  at  the  first  moment  as  sacred  books.  This  we  saw 
above  in  treating  of  the  criticism  of  the  canon.  And  in  con- 
sequence, even  had  the  Christians  had  a  prevision  of  that  later 
Masoretic  accuracy,  they  would  have  had  no  occasion  to  apply 
it  to  the  books  which  had  not  yet  become  sacred. 

Let  us  then  again  attack  the  matter  of  the  classes  of  text, 
and  ask  ourselves  in  what  way  differences  in  the  words  and 
sentences  could  arise.  We  must  not  lose  ourselves  in  the 
woods  of  the  consideration  of  the  merely  external  side  of 
the  matter,  and  we  may  say  briefly  that  differences  might 
have  arisen,  and  certainly  did  arise,  without  any  intention  on 
the  part  of  the  copyist  to  make  any  change,  and  as  well,  on 
the  contrary,  as  the  result  of  the  direct  purpose  of  a  scribe 
or  theologian.  Variations  were  unintentional  and  intentional. 
It  is,  I  think,  important  before  we  go  to  the  question  of  the 
classes  in  detail  to  make  one  or  two  observations  here  in 
reference  to  the  probable  origin  of  these  classes.  It  is  the  habit 
in  philology  to  call  the  classes  of  manuscripts  the  genealogy  or 
the  genealogical  classes  of  the  text,  and  the  term  is  a  fit  one. 
One  manuscript  is  the  son  of  an  older  one,  the  father  of  a 
younger  one.  In  philology  the  classes  differ  in  general  from 
each  other  chiefly  in  the  continuation,  the  propagation,  of  faults 
which  have  not  been  conscious  ones,  of  changes  which  were  not 
the  results  of  will  but  of  human  frailty.  The  sources  of  error  may 
have  been  in  the  vision.  The  eye  may  in  its  haste  have  taken  a 
dim  N  for  an  H,  or  an  H  for  a  IT,  or  an  €  for  an  O,  or  for  a  C, 
or  a  r  for  a  T.  It  may  have  mistaken  a  whole  word  for  another 
that  had  about  the  same  general  form.  The  eye  may  have 
31 


482  THE  TEXT 

returned  from  the  page  that  was  being  written  and  caught  the 
same  word  as  the  one  just  copied,  but  at  another  part  of  the 
column  or  in  another  column,  and  therefore  in  continuing  the 
copy  have  omitted,  all  that  was  between  those  two  occurrences 
of  the  same  word.  Or  the  error  may  have  arisen  in  the  ear. 
The  text  may  have  been  read  in  the  hearing  of  several  scribes, 
each  of  whom  wrote  without  seeing  the  text,  and  exhibited  faults 
of  hearing.  Enough  of  that.  These  mistakes  are  purely 
accidental  and  unintentional.  In  general  we  may,  I  think,  say 
that  the  errors  in  the  ordinary  run  of  classical  or  of  profane  texts 
are  of  this  kind. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  say  that  the  scribes,  the  copyists  of 
the  Greek  manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament,  were  also  men, 
also  fallible,  and  that  they  committed  in  like  manner  faults 
or  made  mistakes  which  were  in  no  way  connected  with  their 
will.  Now  the  classes  in  the  majority  of  the  texts  of  the  profane 
authors,  who  for  the  most  part  have  but  few  documents,  rest 
largely  upon  such  errors  in  their  cumulative  and  accumulated  pro- 
pagation. It  is  natural  that  philologians  and  philologically  trained 
theologians  should  at  the  first  blush  take  it  for  granted  that  the 
classes  in  the  text  of  the  New  Testament  originated  in  the  same 
way.  A  result  of  this,  if  I  am  not  mistaken,  false  conception 
and  assumption  was  the  presentation  in  the  prefaces  to  the 
Greek  New  Testament  of  the  ordinary,  well-established  canons  of 
philological  criticism  as  if  these  were  the  special  principles  of  the 
given  editor  for  the  determination  of  the  text  of  his  edition.  And 
such  prefaces  then  only  propagated  further  the  false  conception. 
It  was  a  matter  of  course  that  the  critic  of  the  text  of  the  New 
Testament  should  use  these  rules  in  handling  his  sources,  as 
much  a  matter  of  course  as  that  a  cabinetmaker  or  a  smith  treat 
wood  and  metal  according  to  the  rules  for  treating  wood  and 
metal  even  when  making  an  altar  or  a  reading-desk,  or  a  chancel 
railing  or  a  bronze  lectern.  Were  these  the  only  sources  of 
change  in  the  text  of  the  New  Testament  we  should,  I  opine, 
have  a  very  different  task  before  us,  and  a  very  much  simpler  one. 
Classes  of  New  Testament  manuscripts  arising  in  this  way  may 
be  met  with  at  almost  ever}'  turning,  to  speak  with  a  slight 
exaggeration. 

But  these  classes,  such  classes,  have  scarcely  a  distant 
relationship  to  the  classes  of  the  tradition  of  the  New  Testa- 


EARLY   HISTORY   OF   TEXT— ORIGINAL  TEXT        483 

ment  text  properly  so  called.  This  is  the  reason  which  renders 
the  criticism  of  the  text  of  this  New  Testament  such  an  absurd 
thing  to  the  mind  of  the  ordinary  philologian  before  he  has 
examined  closely  into  the  state  of  the  case.  I  should  even 
venture  the  hypothesis  that  a  confusion  of  these  classes  or  a 
mistaking  of  these  classes  for  the  sources  of  the  classes  of  the 
New  Testament  text  was  the  cause  for  the  original  hopes  of  the 
greatest  philologian  the  world  has  ever  seen,  Richard  Bentley,  of 
a  speedy  solution  of  the  difficult  problems  of  this  text.  At  that 
day  neither  he  nor  anyone  else  could  see  through  the  maze. 
Gradually  Griesbach  and  Hug  and  Lachmann  caught  glimpses 
of  the  relations  that  were  in  existence.  Neither  Tregelles  nor 
Tischendorf  occupied  himself  deeply  with  the  matter.  And  it 
was  left  again  to  two  Englishmen,  again  to  Cambridge,  to 
Westcott,  who  was  Bentley's  distant  successor  in  the  chair,  and  to 
his  friend  Hort,  to  set  forth  these  classes  for  the  first  time  in  an 
intelligible  clearness.  Their  work  was  initiative  w^ork.  They 
knew  that  others  w^ould  go  beyond  them.  But  they  broke  a  way 
through  the  wilderness,  or,  to  change  the  figure,  they  disentangled 
the  mass  of  the  apparently  hopelessly  knotted  threads  of  this 
tradition.  This  practical  example  has  brought  me  unawares  to 
the  point  that  must  here  follow.  I  shall  for  the  moment  leave 
this  part  of  the  discussion  and,  returning  to  what  we  said  when 
beginning  with  the  criticism  of  the  text,  speak  of  what  seems  to 
have  been  the  course  of  events  in  the  early  days  of  the  textual 
tradition.  What  I  have  to  say  is  the  view  of  Westcott  and  Hort 
with  some  slight  and  external  modifications,  modifications  which 
they  would  in  part  probably  have  made  themselves  had  they 
been  less  cautious,  less  prudent,  and  less  modest  than  they  were. 


The  Original  Text. 

The  books  of  the  New  Testament,  the  Epistles — are  they 
read  first  in  the  church  services  because  they  were  first  written 
and  because  they  therefore  are  prefaces  for  the  Gospels? — the 
Gospels,  the  Acts,  Revelation  have  been  written.  As  I  think 
for  the  moment  of  about  the  year  100,  I  must  remind  myself  that 
Second  Peter  probably  was  not  yet  written,  but  Jude  gives  us 
some  of  it  in  a  much  more  concise  form.     The  most  of  them 


484  THE  TEXT 

have  already  been  copied  off  a  large  number  of  timei;,  copied 
partly  because  worn  out  and  needing  to  be  replaced  for  the  same 
church,  and  partly  because  new  churches  or  other  churches  far 
and  near  asked  to  have  them  sent  to  them.  We  must  assume 
that  these  very  first  copies  were  really  among  the  best,  I  mean, 
the  most  accurate  copies  that  ever  were  made.  Not  that  they 
were  pretty  or  very  well  written,  although  those  made  at  Rome 
may  have  been  that  too.  They  were  probably  the  most  accurate 
because  copied  simply  and  naively.  I  conceive  of  the  early 
years  as  by  far  the  best  years  until  the  passage  of  a  couple  of 
centuries.  The  copying  before  the  year  100  will  have,  as  a  rule, 
been  better  than  the  copying  that  was  done  in  general  up  to  the 
year — to  name  a  totally  unfixable  year — 350.  Of  the  later  years 
we  have  to  speak  afterwards.  Let  us  hold  for  the  moment  to 
the  years  before  100. 

And  I  begin  by  at  once  retrenching  the  statement  above. 
There  is,  I  think,  one  large  or  determined  exception  to  be  made. 
I  beg,  however,  to  emphasise  the  fact  that  this  exception  is 
pure  theory  on  my  part.  I  have  no  proof  for  it.  It  only 
appears  to  me  to  be  the  best  explanation  for  the  facts  which 
we  afterwards  observe.  And,  of  course,  I  think — others  will 
think  differently — that  the  theory  agrees  with  the  conceivable 
or  probable  course  of  Christian  life  and  habit  at  that  day.  The 
exception  is  the  book  of  Revelation.  At  present  I  still  cling 
to  the  supposition  that  it  was  written  before  the  year  70,  though 
I  confess  that  the  later  date,  say  the  year  90,  has  something 
to  say  for  itself.  Owing  to  the  inclination  of  that  age  towards 
all  manner  of  apocalyptic  visions,  owing  to  the  longings  for 
a  future  suited  to  make  good  all  that  the  Christians — as  well 
as  the  Jews — had  suffered  and  were  then  suffering,  this  book 
was  probably  far  more  frequently  sought  for,  read,  and  copied 
during  the  years  of  which  we  are  speaking,  the  years  up  to  100, 
than  any  other  Christian  book.  It  seems  likely  that  it  was 
originally  a  Jewish  book,  and  that  a  Christian  re-wrought  it. 
Now,  my  theory  is  that  this  book  was  during  these  years  the 
object  of  an  active,  not  cannonade,  but  infantry  fire.  This, 
however,  must  not  be  taken  in  a  hostile  sense,  save  so  far  as  it 
was  hostile  to  the  purity  of  the  text.  The  people  liked  the  book. 
They  revelled  in  its  dreams  and  they  dreamed  its  dreams  and 
they  embellished  its  dreams.     That   was  a  time  of  simplicity. 


EARLY  HISTORY  OF  TEXT— ORIGINAL  TEXT       483 

The  book  was  not  yet  scripture.  It  was  a  dream-book.  Every- 
one could  dream.  Everyone  could  add  another  trait  here  and 
there  to  enliven  the  story.  Enough  of  the  theory.  That  seems 
to  me  to  be  the  probable  exception  to  the  plain  and  simple 
copying  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  during  the  closing 
years  of  the  first  century. 

These  early  copyists  will  have  made  the  mistakes  that  are 
the  first  objects  of  the  philological  canons  of  criticism.  They 
will  have  written  words  wrong  or  left  words  out.  But  they 
will  not  have  changed  the  text  willingly.  It  will  not  have 
occurred  to  them  to  change  it.  The  result  will  have  been  that 
we  may  conceive  of  a  large  number  of  copies  having  already 
been  made  of  pretty  much  all  the  books  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, save  of  the  then  lately  issued  Gospel  of  John,  which, 
however,  will  rapidly  have  caught  up  to  the  other  Gospels  in 
its  course  through  the  churches.  These  copies  were  doubtless 
for  the  most  part  still  copies  of  single  rolls,  although  here  and 
there  several  of  the  Epistles  of  Paul  may  have  been  put  into  one 
roll.  Now,  the  text  found  in  these  early  copies  will  have  been 
essentially  the  original  text.  The  errors  to  which  we  have 
referred  were  doubtless  in  the  main  as  usual  of  a  minor  character, 
and  have  in  their  unintentional  kind  done  nothing  to  change  the 
form  of  the  text  as  a  whole.  Before  leaving  this  text  to  consider 
all  that  happens  to  it  to  modify  it,  and  all  that  follows  upon  it,  I 
wish  to  emphasise  the  fact  that  single  copies  of  it,  especially  of 
books  that  had  been  re-copied  on  parchment,  may  have  lasted 
well  on  into  the  second  century,  the  parchment  books  or  rolls, 
at  least  till  the  fourth  century.  This  text  I  name  boldly  the 
Original  Text.  It  is  the  text  which  Westcott  and  Hort  in  their 
shrinking  modesty  called  Pre-Syrian  and  of  no  family.  But  it  is 
to  all  intents  and  purposes  the  Original  Text.  No  one  has  been 
doctoring  it.  No  one  has  set  about  changing  it.  Only  the  book 
of  Revelation  has,  at  least  theoretically,  had  a  different  fate,  and 
has,  not  by  the  premeditated  work  of  a  single  Christian  but  by 
the  fitful  and  sympathetic  attentions  of  many  a  pen  backed  by 
many  a  fancy,  been  turned  into  a  piebald  representative  of  its 
former  self.  Of  course,  we  do  not  call  that  the  original  text  of 
Revelation.     We  shall  name  it  in  a  moment. 


486  THE  TEXT 


The  Re-Wrought  Text. 

We  pass  on  to  the  second  century.  No  one  will,  I  trust, 
imagine  that  I  conceive  of  these  living  processes  as  being  limit- 
able  thus  by  sharp  dates,  because  for  the  sake  of  a  certain 
definiteness  I  put  in  dates  and  give  to  shadowy  thoughts  a  local 
habitation  and  a  name.  Textual  traditions  can  no  more  be  cut 
across  with  a  knife  into  living  sections  than  an  arm  can.  I  said 
a  moment  ago  that  the  Original  Text  named  lived  on  in  a  private 
way,  did  not  halt  and  cease  at  the  year  loo,  and  as  well  must 
I  say  here  that  the  process  now  to  be  described  also  had  roots 
and  preceding  stages  and  beginnings  before  the  year  loo.  The 
second  century  is  a  middle  ground.  It  was  neither  the  early 
day  of  unbounded  enthusiasm  nor  was  it  the  later  day  of  calm 
and  definite  science.  It  was  neither  Peter  and  John,  nor  Origen 
and  Hippolytus.  Should  it  at  times  appear  to  be  chaotic,  its 
chaos  is  one  of  life,  not  of  death.  If  heresies  begin  in  it,  the 
heresies  proper  are  noble,  self-denying  heresies  and  not  self- 
seeking  ones.  Let  us  look  at  the  text  and  its  treatment  during 
this  century.  The  books  of  the  New  Testament  are  already 
widely  spread.  The  number  of  Christian  churches  is  rapidly 
increasing.  The  apostle,  as  the  wandering  preacher  is  called, 
the  missionary  we  should  say  to-day,  is  kept  moving.  It  is 
forbidden  to  him  to  stay  in  one  place  more  than  a  day,  possibly 
two  days,  at  most  three  days.  He  must  go  on  and  on,  and  carry 
the  word  farther.  And  where  the  word  takes  root,  and  a  group 
of  Christians  is  formed,  there  a  book  of  the  New  Testament  may 
soon  be  desired.  The  means  of  the  Christians  and  the  books  to 
be  found  in  the  neighbourhood  will  have  decided  how  many  and 
what  books  they  first  got.  This  process  of  rapid  increase  may 
well  have  lasted,  with  many  a  break  and  many  a  standstill  and 
many  a  reverse  in  single  districts,  on  into  the  fourth  century, 
or  at  least  until  the  middle  of  the  third. 

Let  me  say  at  once  that  in  general  it  is  not  to  be  supposed 
that  the  new  additions  to  the  number  of  the  faithful  occupied 
themselves  with  the  text  in  any  other  sense  than  as  diligent 
readers  and  ponderers  of  it.  The  reason  that  I  have  thus 
pressed  at  length  upon  the  spread  of  Christianity,  is  to  show 
and  to  urge  the  call  for  copies  thereby  created,  and  the  conse- 


EARLY   HISTORY  OF   TEXT— RE-^VROUGIIT  TEXT      487 

quent  ever-increasing  carrying  into  new  districts  of  whatever 
text  the  older  churches  used.  In  the  wide  fields  in  which  the 
Church  had  taken  a  firm  stand,  and  won  a  definite  place  from 
the  first,  the  text  was  the  object  of  the  most  diligent  atten- 
tion. Our  eyes  must  turn  to  the  churches  in  Palestine,  and 
remember  Caesarea  and  Antioch ;  to  the  churches  in  Asia  Minor, 
and  think  of  Ephesus  and  Smyrna  with  their  sister  cities  ;  to 
the  churches  in  Greece,  and  recall  Corinth  :  to  the  churches  in 
Italy,  and  behold  Rome;  to  the  churches  in  Africa,  and  fancy 
the  forerunners  of  Tertullian  in  the  West  and  of  Pantaenus  in 
the  East.  In  the  domain  *of  these  churches  there  were  still 
in  the  earlier  part  of  the  second  century  many  who  had  near 
traditional  bonds  with  the  time  of  the  apostles,  as  we  saw  in  the 
criticism  of  the  canon  (pp.  75,  102).  Now  for  such  persons  the 
inclination  to  put  pen  to  the  margin  of  the  books  of  the  New 
Testament  must  often  have  been  very  strong.  The  very  external 
circumstance  that  the  rolls  were  written,  so  that  the  addition  was 
and  looked  much  more  normal  and  fitting  than  an  addition  to 
our  printed  texts,  must  have  made  the  thought  of  addition  and 
of  change  more  easy. 

Precisely  what  was  changed  or  added  depended  upon  the 
special  case.  Here  was  an  old  man  who  had  seen,  known,  heard 
Paul ;  here  was  a  man  whose  father  had  known  and  heard  other 
apostles  ;  here  was  a  man  with  some  fragmentary  roll  of  an 
earlier  evangelical  story,  an  earlier  tradition  about  words  of 
Jesus.  One  was  sure  that  when  the  given  Epistle  came  from 
Paul  the  sentence  read  thus  and  thus.  Another  had  heard  that 
Jesus  at  that  point  had  used  these  precise  words,  which  were  not 
in  the  text  before  him.  Another  had  a  beautiful  story,  let  us  say 
the  account  of  the  Adulteress,  and  was  ready  to  put  it  into  the 
Gospels  somewhere.  Another  one  was  sure  that  Jesus  would  not 
have  spoken  thus,  but  must  have  spoken  thus.  Another,  even 
without  traditional  hold,  was  ready  to  add,  to  strike  out,  to 
change  because  it  seemed  to  him  that  at  the  given  point  he  could 
make  the  New  Testament  books  better  than  they  were.  It  was 
all  in  the  Church.  These  were  books  of  the  Church.  He  was 
a  member  of  the  Church.  Of  course  he  had  a  right  to  impiove 
these  books. 

We  must  herewith  again  urge  a  previous  observation.  These 
books  were  at  the  first  moment  not  sacred  in  the  same  sense 


488  THE  TEXT 

as  the  writings  of  the  Old  Testament.  They  were  books  of 
the  day.  They  came  from  a  valued  preacher,  from  that  little 
shrivelled  up  missionary  Paul  who  went  about  from  place  to 
place  with  his  loom  packed  together  on  his  back.  They  were 
Gospels,  it  may  be,  a  written  form  of  what  the  apostles  and 
wandering  evangelists  were  saying  by  word  of  mouth.  For  the 
future  of  this  literature  there  was  no  thought.  The  literature 
would  have  no  future.  The  future  would  bring,  and  that  right 
soon,  the  return  of  Jesus.  The  Messiah  and  King  must  soon 
appear.  And  so  one  and  another  used  his  pen  on  the  margin 
and  between  the  lines  of  these  books  without  feeling  any  com- 
punction. Two  points  are  not  to  be  lost  sight  of  in  this 
connection.  In  the  first  place,  the  general  remarks  just  made 
are  not  to  be  understood  in  the  sense  that  positively  everyone, 
every  Christian  who  could  read  and  write,  felt  an  inclination  to 
modify  in  this  way  the  text,  or  even  that  the  majority  of  the 
Christians  wrote  in  the  manuscripts.  The  aim  of  these  remarks 
is  to  show  the  thoughts  of  those  who  really  did  use  their  pens  in 
this  way.  And,  in  the  second  place,  the  alterations  or  additions 
made  by  these  hands  were  by  the  necessity  of  life  locally  different, 
and  therefore  the  changes  made  in  one  place  were  more  notice- 
able than  those  made  in  another.  The  gifts  and  the  experiences 
of  one  Christian  who  changed  the  text  were  not  the  same  as  the 
gifts  and  experiences  of  another. 

The  necessary  consequence  was  that  these  texts  then  took 
gradually  a  somewhat  different  form  in  different  provinces. 
Many  a  change  was  made  early  and  and  then  passed  by  the 
process  of  manuscript  transmission  and  tradition,  or  by  the 
verbal  communication  of  member  to  member,  into  other  districts. 
Yet  each  district  kept  adding  or  changing  for  itself.  This 
brought  a  difference  of  character  from  that  of  the  Original  Text 
which  remained  in  general,  so  far  as  it  remained  untouched, 
of  one  and  the  same  cast.  This  text  was,  strictly  speaking, 
alike  in  no  two  provinces.  It  proceeded  from  no  single  source. 
It  pursued  no  single  aim.  In  fact,  at  the  first  instant  the  observer 
would  be  quite  right  in  declaring  that  it  was  not  a  text,  was  not 
a  clear-cut  revision  or  correction  of  the  former  text,  but  that  it 
was  a  series  of  varying  experiences  of  the  earlier  text  in  various 
places.  One  could  deny  that  we  were  justified  in  individualis- 
ing it,  in  calling  it  "  it."     As  time  passed  this  process,  however, 


EARLY   HISTORY  OF  TEXT— RE-WROUGHT  TEXT     489 

ceased.  It  did  not  cease  as  if  an  express-train  brake  had  stopped 
it.     It  was  not  cut  off  at  midnight  on  the  last  day  of  the  year  200. 

In  most  districts  it  had  come  to  an  end  fifty  years  before  that 
point  of  time.  We  shall  nevertheless,  for  the  sake  of  clearness, 
in  order  to  fix  the  thought,  name  the  year  200  as  the  close  of 
this  process.  What  has  been  said  makes  it  apparent,  not  only 
that  we  must  see  in  the  witnesses  of  that  period  which  are  in  our 
hands,  traces  of  different  phases  of  this  second  kind  of  text,  but 
also  that  we  must  be  prepared  to  meet  with,  must  expect  to 
meet  with,  still  further  phases  of  it  in  any  new  records  of  the 
period  which  the  future  may  bestow  upon  us.  But  in  all  its 
phases  this  text  will  have  two  characteristics  which  merge  into 
each  other.  It  will  in  the  first  place  be  old.  Be  the  alterations 
in  it,  the  additions  to  it,  what  they  may,  none  of  them  will  recall 
to  us  the  characteristics  of  a  later  period  in  the  life  of  the  Church 
or  in  the  fortunes  of  the  text.  Wherever  we  light  upon  them 
they  will  meet  us  with  the  lavender-freighted  air  of  the  ancestral 
chest.  And  it  will,  in  the  second  place,  precisely  with  this  age, 
preserve  for  us  large  quantities  of  the  Original  Text.  It  is  not 
another  text  re-wrought,  but  the  Original  Text  re-wrought.  And 
that  in  it  which  is  not  changed,  which,  of  course,  will  be  by  far 
the  greater  part  of  it,  that  is  original  text. 

When  we  spoke  a  moment  ago  of  the  many  phases  of  this 
text,  some  persons  may  have  had  a  feeling  of  mistrust  towards 
it,  and  an  inclination  to  shrink  away  from  its  uncertainty  and 
intangibility.  A  moment's  reflection  shows,  however,  that  in 
this  very  respect  it  is  of  great  value  to  us.  In  the  different 
phases  and  different  modifications,  the  parts  of  the  original 
text  that  were  modified,  or  that  were  left  untouched,  become 
clearer  to  our  view.  Two  modifications  of  the  same  words 
permit  a  more  certain  conclusion  as  to  what  the  original  words 
were,  than  a  single  modification  does.  And  words  modified  by 
one  province  may  in  another  have  been  left  as  they  were. 

The  name  of  this  text  is  the  Re-Wrought  Text.  This  is  the 
plain  everyday  name  for  the  fact  that  is  observed.  Westcott 
and  Hort  used  the  old  name  Western  Text,  though  they  conceded 
that,  or  better,  asserted  that  the  word  Western  was  wrong,  that 
it  was  not  a  Western  text.  It  was  their  inborn  and  scientific 
modesty  that  led  them  to  use  the  old  name.  But  a  name  has  its 
influence  upon  the  thoughts,  ard  if  we  recognise  that  a  name  is 


490  THE  TEXT 

one  that  leads  the  thoughts  astray  in  spite  of  themselves,  the 
sooner  we  change  it  the  better.  To  call  this  Re-Wrought  Text 
the  Western  Text,  pulls  the  mind  awry,  and  compels  a  constant 
astigmatism  of  view.  That  figure  is  doubtless  all  wrong,  for  I  am 
no  oculist,  but  I  mean  that  the  eye  of  the  mind  sees  Western  and 
does  not  see  Western,  and  that  the  rays  refuse  to  centre. 

This  Re-Wrought  Text  was  the  text  which  at  the  close  of  the 
second  century  was  to  be  found  almost  everywhere.  It  was  not  to 
be  found  wherever  by  some  happy  provision  of  providence,  bearing 
upon  the  clearness  of  mind  or  on  the  comparative  freedom  from 
mental  action — here  is  an  argument  for  the  people  who  deprecate 
general  education — of  a  given  community,  the  Original  Text  was 
to  be  found.  But  it  was  to  be  found  everywhere  else.  There 
were  then  but  these  two  kinds  of  texts.  We  see  here  again  how 
little  it  will  do  to  deal  rashly  with  dates.  Lachmann  thought  he 
could  get  a  text  of  the  fourth  century  or  the  text  of  the  fourth 
century.  What  he  really  got  was  something  far  better.  He  did 
not  knovv,  as  we  now  know,  that  the  text  of  the  fourth  century  was 
the  worst  text  there  is.  Now,  if  a  good  Christian  should  say : 
Give  me  the  text  of  the  second  century,  and  I  will  ask  for  nothing 
better,  he  would  be  wide  of  the  mark.  He  would  find  in  this 
Re-Wrought  Text  a  better  text  than  that  text  of  the  fourth  century, 
but  it  would  still  not  be  the  right,  the  Original  Text.  This  text 
had  in  the  second  century  a  certain  fascination  for  the  Christian 
gaze.  It  retains  some  of  that  power  to-day.  Alongside  of  the 
Original  Text  it  was  more  juicy,  more  popular,  and  more  full. 
It  left  almost  nothing  out.  It  added  almost  all  it  could  lay 
hands  upon. 

Many  a  scholar  looks  at  it  to-day  and  finds  in  it  a  charm  that 
the  other  old  text  does  not  possess.  One  part  of  its  charm  for 
some  scholars  lay  with  justice,  though  not  a  justice  that  they 
recognised,  in  the  measure  of  its  preservation  of  the  original  text. 
They  then  proceeded  to  claim  for  it  the  excellence  that  belonged 
not  to  it  but  to  the  Original  Text,  so  far  as  that  was  still  to  be 
found  within  the  witnesses  for  the  Re-Wrought  Text.  In  con- 
sequence of  this  preservation  of  its  source  it  plays  everywhere 
into  the  hands  of  the  Original  Text.  Its  witnesses  are  of  neces- 
sity among  the  most  important  witnesses  for  that  text.  What 
we  need  to  do  is  to  distinguish  between  what  is  original  and 
what  is  re- wrought. 


EARLY  HISTORY  OF  TEXT— POLISHED  TEXT   49 1 

There  must,  of  course,  be  something  chameleon-like  in  such  a 
text,  in  that  it  varies  in  the  many  shadings  of  local  alteration. 
That  does  not  matter.  And,  at  any  rate,  we  must  take  our  text 
as  we  find  it.  We  must  use  the  witnesses  that  tradition  has 
given  us.  We  cannot  have  them  made  to  order.  This  Re- 
Wrought  Text  has  given  us  no  tokens  of  scientific  operations 
to  which  the  text  was  subjected.  It  has  shown  us  people  w^ho 
acted  naively  rather  than  of  set  purpose.  They  were  practical, 
not  theoretical  people.  They  were  not  thinking  of  the  text  as 
a  text  or  as  a  book.  They  were  full  of  the  thing,  the  thoughts, 
the  story,  the  exhortation,  the  vision.  And  here  we  see  that 
the  process  which  we  have  described  is  the  same  as  that  to 
which  we  pointed  when  speaking  of  the  book  of  Revelation 
and  its  text  during  the  former  period.  Special  reasons  led  the 
Christians  to  work  over,  to  impress  themselves  upon  the  text 
of  Revelation  at  that  early  time,  and  the  special  character  of 
that  book  called  for  that  treatment  of  its  text,  guided  and  made 
easy  that  treatment,  and  prevented  the  all  too  speedy  application 
of  a  similar  treatment  to  the  other  books.  But  here  I  shall  say 
something  against  myself.  It  was  one  of  the  difficulties  with 
Westcott  and  Hort  that  they  knew  so  very  much,  that  it  was 
hard  for  them  not  to  know  and  not  to  recognize  the  justice  of 
the  "other  side."  With  less  knowledge  I  should  like  to  emulate 
their  modesty.  Here,  therefore,  I  observe,  that  if  anyone  prefer 
to  suppose  that  the  working  over  of  the  various  books  of  the 
New  Testament  did  not  tarry  for  the  year  100,  did  not  merely 
have  roots  and  inceptions  before  that  date,  but  vigorous  action, 
I  shall  not  quarrel  with  him. 


The  Polished  Text. 

The  first  inclinations  of  the  early  Christians  were  not  scientific 
inclinations.  That  was  no  wonder.  But  science  came  with 
time.  Scholars  were  converted  and  became  Christians,  and 
Christians  were  trained  and  became  scholars.  It  is  usual  to 
point  for  the  earliest  Christian  scholarship  to  Alexandria  and  to 
the  beginnings  of  the  theological  school  that  threads  upon  its 
necklace  the  names  of  Pantaenus,  Clement,  Origen,  and  Dionysius. 
I  do  not  wish  to  detract  in  the  least  from    the   merits  of  that 


492  THE  TEXT 

school.  Yet  with  that  persistent  bent  towards  theorising  under 
which  these  pages  have  so  often  suffered,  I  should  like  to  break 
a  lance  for  Antioch  again,  and  to  say  here  in  connection  with  the 
text,  that  I  would  fain  think  that  at  a  very  early  date,  long  before 
the  definite  knowledge  we  have  of  it,  there  existed  at  Antioch 
a  theological  school. 

The  moment  that  Christian  science  existed,  that  moment  it 
busied  itself  with  the  text  of  the  New  Testament.  There  is 
no  help  for  that.  Whether  at  Alexandria,  or  at  Antioch,  or 
at  Csesarea,  when  men  who  had  had  an  accurate  training  in 
grammar  came  to  examine  closely  the  text,  they  found  many  a 
trifle  that  did  not  agree  with  the  rules  then  long  recognised  for 
the  use  of  the  Greek  language.  They  were  acquainted  with  the 
dangers  of  manuscript  tradition,  and  had  at  least  some  vague 
conception  of  the  comparatively  unlearned  character  of  the 
early  Christian  communities.  When,  then,  they  found  in  the 
text  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  what  seemed  to  them 
to  be  or  what  actually  were  faults  of  one  kind  and  another,  two 
ways  of  accounting  for  these  faults  were  open  to  them.  It  was 
possible  to  say  that  the  writers  of  these  books  had  been  guided 
and  protected  from  faults  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  that  the  original 
form  of  their  writings  must  have  been  in  every  respect  all  that 
could  be  desired,  and  that  if  in  the  copies  in  hand  there  were 
found  errors  or  faults,  these  must  necessarily  be  attributed  to  the 
carelessness  or  ignorance  of  the  Christians  who  had  from  time 
to  time  copied  the  rolls.  There  is,  then,  no  need  to  say  that 
Christian  scholars,  detecting  these  faults,  corrected  them  without 
hesitation ;  and  considered  themselves  not  merely  justified  in  so 
doing,  but  as  forced  by  duty  to  do  so.     That  was  the  one  view. 

It  was  possible  also  to  say  that  these  writers  of  the  New 
Testament  were  most  of  them  by  no  means  so  well  at  home  in 
the  Greek  language  as  to  be  able  to  use  it  skilfully,  to  write  it 
correctly.  They  were  guided  by  the  Spirit  of  God  in  the  sense 
of  their  utterances.  But  this  Spirit  of  God  did  not  occupy  itself 
with  the  external  form  of  the  language.  In  consequence,  the 
sacred  writers  had  written  less  elegantly  and  less  correctly  than 
was  really  to  be  desired  in  a  book  of  so  great  moment.  That 
had  not  been  a  serious  detriment  to  the  spread  of  Christianity 
during  those  earlier  years  of  plain  preaching.  Now,  however, 
that  cultured  men  began  to  inlerest  themselves  for  Christianity, 


EARLY  HISTORY  OF  TEXT— POLISHED  TEXT        493 

now  that  the  reading  of  these  writings  formed  so  important  a 
part  in  the  services  of  the  churches,  it  was  necessary  that  a 
skilful  hand  smooth  away  the  linguistic  roughnesses  and  make 
the  text,  if  not  good,  at  least  better  than  it  had  been.  We  may 
imagine  that  the  scholars  of  Alexandria  and  Antioch  and  Caesarea 
viewed  the  matter  from  the  one  or  the  other  of  these  two  points 
of  view. 

There  does  not  appear  to  have  been  any  concerted  action  in 
reference  to  the  text.  So  far  as  our  documents  go,  no  one  seems 
to  have  set  about  a  regular  revision  of  the  whole  New  Testament, 
or  even  of  one  or  more  books.  Whether  these  scholars  did  not 
venture  to  do  the  thing  thoroughly,  and  whether  they  supposed 
that  if  they  did  but  change  a  little  here  and  there  for  the  better  it 
would  never  be  noticed,  or  whether  the  rolls  in  which  they  made 
their  complete  correction  of  the  text  have  failed  to  be  handed  down 
to  us,  we  cannot  with  certainty  determine.  What  we  find  in  the 
documents,  and  particularly  in  documents  and  in  the  writings  of 
theologians  connected  with  Egypt,  is  that  in  a  number  of  passages, 
readings  have  been  produced  which  have  certainly  been  after- 
thoughts and  not  the  original  readings,  and  which  betray  the 
moulding  hand  of  the  trained  scholar  which  has  been  making  the 
text  more  presentable  to,  more  agreeable  for  learned  and  for 
educated  eyes  and  ears. 

Seeing  that  this  correction  of  the  text  either  did  not  extend 
to  the  whole  New  Testament  or  has  at  least  not  reached  our 
hands  in  its  entirety,  we  perhaps  should  speak  only  of  "  readings  " 
and  not  of  a  "  text."  Yet  we  give  it  for  the  present  the  benefit 
of  the  doubt  and  call  it  a  text.  If  complete  manuscripts  be 
one  day  found,  they  can  at  once  pass  into  their  place.  This  text 
I  name  the  Polished  Text.  This  name  is  again  one  that  simply 
puts  the  fact  on  record.  The  corrector  wished  to  file  the  text 
off,  to  give  to  it  as  nearly  as  possible  the  smooth  surface  of 
polite  diction.  Westcott  and  Hort  called  it,  and  that  with 
geographical  propriety,  the  Alexandrian  Text.  The  documents 
for  it  thus  far  known  agree  with  that  name.  Nevertheless,  I 
have  taken  the  matter  of  fact  name,  partly  led  perhaps  by  a  less 
matter  of  fact  and  rather  sentimental  desire  to  keep  the  door 
open  for  the  possible  participation  of  a  dreamed  of  early 
Antiochian  school  in  this  learned  care  for  the  text. 

Since  this  text  is,  as  has  been  seen,  of  a  fragmentary  character 


494  THE  TEXT 

or  of  an  ethereal  existence,  it  is  less  easy  to  determine  definitely 
at  what  time  it  probably  arose.  It  seems  most  likely  to  have 
been  the  work  of  the  early  third  century  or  of  the  late  second 
century,  and  it  will  be  the  most  prudent  thing  for  us  for  the 
present  to  date  it  simply  with  the  year  ±  200.  The  scholar 
may  comfort  himself  with  the  thought  that  his  predecessors  at 
that  day  tried  to  do  their  duty  towards  the  text,  even  though  we 
to-day  do  not  think  that  what  they  did  was  after  all  the  right 
thing  to  do.  It  is  in  connection  with  this  text  that  we  can 
apparently  in  some  places  see  that  Clement  of  Alexandria  used 
different  rolls  of  scripture  when  writing  different  works. 

Herewith  we  close  the  short  list  of  the  old  text.  We  might 
in  one  way  term  these  three  texts  single-eyed  texts.  The  Original 
Text,  the  Re-Wrought  Text,  and  the  Polished  Text  were  all  simple 
texts.  For  the  Original  Text  that  is  a  matter  of  course.  For  the 
Re-Wrought  it  is  the  result  of  the  fact  that  the  application  of  the 
foreign  material  to  the  Original  Text  takes  place  more  in  the 
way  of  accretion  than  in  that  of  combination.  I  hope  that  is  as 
sensible  and  as  intelligible  as  it  sounds.  What  I  mean  is  that 
the  additions  to  the  Original  Text  which  were  made  in  the  Re- 
Wrought  Text  seldom  took  the  form  of  interweaving  parts  of 
sentences  of  the  old  text  with  similar  parts  from  other  sources, 
but  were  clear  additions  of  new  matter,  whether  long  or  short 
ones.  The  Polished  Text  is  again  altogether  single.  There  is 
little  or  no  question  in  it  of  the  gathering  together  of  previous 
material.  The  two  older  texts,  and  especially  the  Original  Text, 
are  its  only  basis,  but  not  its  basis  in  such  a  sense  as  that  the 
corrector  regards  them  as  two  sources  which  he  must  write  into 
one,  not  even  its  basis  in  such  a  sense  that  this  corrector  recog- 
nises them  as  two  distinct  things. 


Thl  Syrian  Rkvisions. 

Should  we  call  upon  a  good  bishop  in  Antioch  in  the  year 
230,  supposing  that  that  year  and  the  bishop  were  still  accessible, 
we  might  find  him  puzzling  his  brains  over  the  three  texts  that 
we  have  just  named.  A  parish  clergyman  from  a  village  off 
towards  Aleppo  had  come  in  to  this  great  city  to  ask  the  advice 
of  the  learned  bishop  about  a  text  which  had  given  rise  to  some 


EARLY   HISTORY  OF  TEXT— SYRIAN   REVISIONS      495 

difficulties  for  him  and  the  clergy  near  him.  The  bishop  found 
that  the  clergyman  had  a  very  old  manuscript,  and  we  know  when 
we  look  at  it,  what  the  bishop  did  not  know,  that  this  roll 
represented  quite  fairly  the  Original  Text.  The  verse  struck  the 
bishop  as  strange,  and  on  taking  his  own  roll  of  the  book  down 
from  the  case  above  his  desk,  he  found  that  his  text  was  not"  the 
same.  Now  his  roll  was  one  of  the  Re-Wrought  Text.  While 
the  bishop  and  the  priest  were  pondering  over  the  matter,  a  young 
clergyman  from  Asia  Minor  came  into  the  room.  He  had  been 
studying  for  a  time  at  Alexandria,  as  we  know  that  Gregory  of 
Nazianzus  did,  and  was  now  on  his  way  home,  but  resting  for 
a  few  days  at  Antioch.  The  bishop  spoke  of  the  text,  and  the 
Asia  Minorite  drew  out  of  his  bosom  a  new  roll  of  the  book 
which  he  had  copied  at  Alexandria,  and  showed  a  still  different 
reading,  one  that  was  clearer  and  in  better  Greek  than  the  other 
two,  the  reading  of  the  Polished  Text. 

Now  I  cannot  give  the  hour  of  the  day  at  which,  nor  the  day 
of  the  month  on  which,  this  happened,  nor  do  I  feel  sure  of  the 
precise  text  which  had  plagued  the  group  of  village  pastors  and 
caused  the  journey  of  their  representative  to  consult  the  bishop. 
But  one  thing  is  sure,  and  that  is  that  such  difficulties  were  rife, 
and  rife  in  more  than  one  place.  The  fact  that  Syria  formed  a 
middle  ground,  may  have  led  the  clergy  there  to  feel  the  difficulty 
the  more  keenly.  Into  Antioch  came  from  the  west  not  only  now 
and  then  more  distant  theologians  from  Rome  and  Athens,  but 
also  and  especially  the  mentally  active  Greeks  from  Asia  Minor. 
From  the  east  came  the  Greeks  living  among  the  Syriac-speaking 
population,  and  compelled  to  know  and  to  explain  the  readings 
of  the  Syrian  manuscripts,  and  to  compare  them  with  their  own 
Greek  manuscripts.  And  from  the  south  came  the  men  who 
had  sat  at  the  feet  of  Origen  at  Csesarea,  or  who  had  been 
spending,  like  the  above-mentioned  clergyman,  some  time  at 
Alexandria  for  the  purpose  of  study.  No  other  point  in  all 
Christendom  was  in  such  a  respect  and  to  such  an  extent  central. 
Further,  however,  the  subsequent  history  of  Antioch  offers  the 
apparently  correct  sequence  for  the  previous  scholarly  inclinations 
and  learned  practices  of  Antioch. 

In  the  earlier  times  there  had  been  no  leisure  for,  and  no 
one  had  felt  the  need  of,  textual  researches,  or  of  efforts  to 
correct  the  text.     Then  the  Christians  had  lived  and  preached 


496  THE  TEXT 

and  fought  a  good  fight,  but  had  not  bothered  themselves  much 
about  various  readings.  But  the  time  seems  now  to  have  come 
for  the  consideration  of  the  text.  We  are  not  perfectly  clear  about 
the  matter.  Much  remains  to  be  cleared  up  or  to  be  cleared 
away  and  changed  by  future  inquiries.  Yet  the  most  likely  course 
of  events  from  our  present  position  and  with  our  present  power 
of  reading  in  the  dark  mirror  of  the  past  is  the  foUgwing. 


The  First  Syrian  Revision. 

Someone  in  Antioch — it  might  have  been  a  company  of 
scholars,  but  it  was  probably  a  single  one — at  the  request  of  the 
bishop  or  feeling  himself  the  difficulty  of  the  described  state  of 
affairs,  determined  to  revise  the  text,  to  bring  the  text  into  a 
good  and  practical  shape.  We  may  name  for  him  as  a  date 
the  middle  of  the  second  century,  though  it  may  have  been 
somewhat  earlier,  but  was  probably  somewhat  later.  The  pre- 
cise year  is  of  no  great  moment,  seeing  that  we  do  not  have  to 
compare  it  again  with  a  definitely  fixed  year  in  the  neighbouring 
decades.  The  material  that  he  had  at  command  we  have  already 
mentioned. 

Now  we  may  question  whether  the  task  that  placed  itself  before 
the  mind  of  this  theologian  was  just  the  one  that  a  modern  critic 
of  the  text  would  appoint  for  him  if  he  could  project  himself 
back  through  the  centuries  and  assume  the  position  of  guide  and 
mentor  for  the  Antiochian  scholar.  I  do  not  think  it  likely  that 
the  problem  before  the  mind  of  that  Syrian  Greek  scholar  was 
devoid  of  reference  to  the  original  text,  but  I  do  think  it  likely 
that  the  question  of  the  genuine  words  filled  a  much  narrower 
space  in  his  deliberations  than  it  would  in  our  minds  to-day.  He 
will  probably  have  bent  his  thoughts  more  upon  two  or  rather 
upon  three  things. 

In  the  first  place,  it  will  have  been  his  wish  to  have  in  his 
text  everything  that  was  in  the  manuscripts  before  him  that  he 
could  conscientiously  bring  into  it.  Just  as  the  ordinary  author 
or  editor  to-day  desires,  if  possible,  in  making  a  new  edition  to 
be  able  to  say  that  it  is  "  revised  and  enlarged,"  so  the  natural 
wish  of  that  reviser  in  Syria  will  have  been  to  make  each  book  as 
full  and  complete  as  the  texts  in  his  hands  permitted.     Feeling 


EARLY  HISTORY  OF  TEXT— FIRST  SYRIAN  REVISION    497 

sure  of  this  principle  in  his  mind,  we  shall  at  least  have  in  the 
text  which  he  constructs  a  clue  to  the  more  exact  contents  of  the 
manuscripts  which  he  had  in  his  hands.  In  general,  we  have  to 
reckon  with  the  established  and  acknowledged  habit  both  of 
tradition  by  word  of  mouth  and  of  written  tradition  to  increase 
and  not  to  decrease  the  thing,  the  statement,  the  history,  the 
argument,  the  explanation,  which  has  been  received  and  which 
is  passed  on  to  the  next  persons  in  the  order  of  place  and 
especially  in  the  order  of  time.     That  was  the  first  aim. 

In  the  second  place,  our  reviser  will  have  been  intent  upon 
relieving  any  difficulties  which  were  found  in  one  or  in  all  of  the 
texts  in  his  hands.  One  of  the  main  reasons  for  going  at  the 
work,  for  undertaking  to  reconstitute  or  to  redetermine  the  text 
of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  was  that  in  the  single  manu- 
scripts difficulties  were  found,  the  solution  of  which  gave  the 
keenest  exegetes  trouble.  And  there  was  coupled  with  this  the 
difficulty  that  arose  when  two  different  witnesses  gave  different  and 
clashing  testimony.  The  reviser  will,  in  judging  of  different  read- 
ings before  him,  have  been  sure  not,  for  example,  in  this  point  to 
have  been  led,  by  the  consideration  of  the  necessity  of  reaching 
the  original  text,  to  press  the  well-known  canon,  of  all  textual 
criticism  in  whatever  language  and  with  respect  to  whatever  book, 
that  the  harder  reading  is  the  truer  reading.  He  will  have  had 
his  daily  life  in  mind,  and  the  need  of  leaving  as  few  problems  as 
possible  unsolved,  and  he  will  have  chosen  the  easier  reading. 
In  pursuance  of  the  same  thought,  in  the  case  of  difficult  readings 
which  did  not  differ  in  the  documents  before  him,  he  will  have 
been  inclined,  when  it  proved  possible  by  a  trifling  or  apparently 
trifling  change  to  render  the  sense  clear  and  unquestionable,  to 
make  such  a  change  and  to  have  more  unconsciously  than  con- 
sciously thereby  presupposed  that  he  in  this  way  attained  either 
the  original  text  or  the  text  that  the  original  writer  would  have 
written,  had  his  attention  been  called  to  this  difficulty.  That  was 
the  second  aim. 

The  third  aim  reminds  us  in  part  of  the  very  last  remark  and 
in  part  and  particularly  of  the  Polished  Text.  For,  in  the  third 
place,  the  reviser  will  have  desired  to  make  a  smooth  text,  a 
text  free  from  less  elegant  expressions,  a  text  that  contained  no 
odd  or  obsolete  grammatical  forms,  a  text  that  would  not  excite 
the  disdain  of  scholarly  men  who  heard  it  read.    And  here  again 


498  THE  TEXT 

the  question  of  authenticity  of  the  words  and  phrases  will  cer- 
tainly not  have  stood  in  the  foreground  of  his  thoughts.  He 
will  have  thought  of  the  beauty  and  not  of  the  Tightness,  V.he 
correctness  of  the  sentences  in  reference  to  originality  as  having 
been  the  words  of  the  author. 

Such  we  suppose  to  have  been  the  work  of  an  Antiochian 
theologian  somewhere  near  the  middle  of  the  third  century. 
It  has  sometimes  been  suggested  that  an  Egyptian  theologian 
may  have  shared  in  the  work.  It  must  be  conceded  that  we  are 
totally  ignorant  of  ail  details,  and  that  the  co-operation  of  an 
Alexandrian  scholar  would  be  quite  conceivable.  The  Alex- 
andrian critic  might  have  remained  at  home  and  sent  his 
thoughts  about  the  text  to  Antioch  by  a  messenger,  receiving 
in  return  the  suggestions  of  his  colleague  at  Antioch  by  the  same 
messenger.  Or  the  Alexandrian  might  have  made  the  journey  to 
Antioch  and  there  have  contributed  to  the  revision.  I  confess, 
however,  that  this  common  work  does  not  seem  to  me  to  be 
very  likely.  It  reminds  me  more  of  modern  times.  The  English 
revisers  with  their  American  colleagues  across  the  Atlantic  have 
so  far  as  I  can  remember  no  parallel  in  antiquity.  It  would  be 
far  less  difficult  for  me  to  suppose  that  an  Egyptian  revision  of 
the  text  preceded  or  succeeded  the  revision  in  Antioch. 

We  have  a  definite  reason  for  placing  this  work  at  Antioch  or 
at  least  in  Syria.  And  if  we  go  to  Syria,  Antioch  is  the  place  that 
most  commends  it.self  to  us.  The  reason  is  this.  The  Syrian 
translation  of  the  New  Testament  appears  to  have  been  revised 
soon  after  the  same  time  and  in  the  same  sense,  that  is  to  say, 
so  as  to  present  in  general  a  newly  determined  text,  even  though 
perhaps  not  precisely  the 'same  text  as  that  found  in  the  Greek 
form.  Now  this  circumstance  points  to  the  work  of  revision  as 
done  in  Syria.  Without  doubt  the  difficulties  found  in  the 
Syrian  version  had  also  contributed  to  hasten  the  necessity  of  the 
revision.  And  the  moment  that  the  Greek  text  was  done,  or 
even  perhaps  step  by  step  as  the  revision  advanced,  the  Syrian 
translation  was  made  to  correspond  to  it.  Had  the  revision  been 
made  in  Alexandria  it  would  have  been  possible  that  the  Coptic 
texts,  the  Boheiric  and  the  Saidic,  would  have  been  made  to 
correspond  to  the  Greek.  I  remember  no  such  change  in  them. 
The  theologian  who  made  this  revision  probably  did  it,  probably 
was  fitted  to  do  it  and  was  appointed  to  do  it,  because  he  was 


EARLY  HISTORY  OF  TEXT— FIRST  SYRIAN  REVISION    499 

known  as  one  of  the  most  learned  men  of  his  day  at  Antioch. 
He  is  likely  to  have  been  asked  to  do  it  by  the  bishop  of  Antioch, 
and  may  even  well  have  done  it  in  the  "  palace  "  of  the  bishop, 
if  we  could  imagine  that  by  that  time  the  bishop  there  ventured 
to  have  a  larger  house  or  series  of  houses  for  himself  and  his 
clergy  and  cur  hypothetical  school. 

We  should,  of  course,  like  very  much  to  know  what  became 
of  this  revision,  that  is  to  say,  what  success  it  met  with  as  a 
literary  and  ecclesiastical  effort.  We  should  be  inclined  to  think 
that  in  view  of  the  generally  or  often  acknowledged  differences 
in  the  current  texts,  and  of  the  disagreeable  consequences  that 
resulted  from  them,  all  Christians  who  heard  of  this  work,  at  least 
all  theologians,  would  at  once  have  ordered  copies  of  it  for  them- 
selves. At  present  we  are  not  able  to  say  just  how  far  that  took 
place.  There  are,  however,  two  circumstances  to  be  brought  into 
view  which  help  to  make  the  surroundings  clearer. 

That  revision  of  the  Syrian  text,  to  make  it  agree  with  the 
revised  Greek  text,  may  have  been  cared  for  in  Antioch  or,  it 
may  be,  in  one  of  the  more  definitely  Syrian  centres,  centres 
of  Syrian  speech,  Nisibis  and  Edessa.  We  have  a  fairly  definite 
proof  that  this  revision  of  the  Syrian  text  was  made  and  backed 
up  by  the  Church  authorities.  For  the  Syriac  manuscripts 
of  the  older  text  disappeared  almost  as  if  by  magic,  and  only 
the  newer  text  was  copied  off.  That  was  possible  with  the 
Syrian  manuscripts.  They  were  in  comparison  of  limited  range. 
They  were  to  be  reached  by  the  authorities  from  that  one  great 
Syrian  centre.  The  Greek  text  was  in  a  different  position.  It 
was  scattered  over  wider  fields,  and  was  not  at  that  time  to  be 
commanded  by  any  single  authority.  This  Greek  text — I  refer  in 
this  sentence  to  the  revised  Greek  text — does  not  seem  to  have 
gone  very  far.  We  might  imagine  that  it  passed  from  Antioch  to 
one  church  and  another  in  Asia  Minor  to  the  north-west  and  in 
Palestine  to  the  south.  But  the  previous  texts,  and  that  means, 
of  course,  especially  the  Re- Wrought  Text  which  had  by  all 
odds  the  wider  sway,  continued  to  be  used.  I  spoke  above 
of  all  this  Syrian  revision  as  perhaps  done  about  the  middle 
of  the  third  century.  Nevertheless,  it  is  not  altogether  im- 
possible that  it  was  done  later  than  that,  towards  the  end  of 
the  century.  The  name  of  Lucian,  who  died  as  a  martyr  in  the 
year  312,  has  been  mentioned  in  connection  with  the  revision 


500  THE  TEXT 

of  the  text.     Perhaps  it  was  he  who  made  the  revision  of  which 
I  have  just  spoken. 


The  Second  Syrian  Revision; 

OR, 

The  Official  Text. 

As  the  fourth  century  moved  on,  there  befell  the  Church  a 
great  change.  The  conversion  of  Constant! ne  brought  into 
Christianity  the  element  of  authority  in  a  totally  new  sense,  and 
that  in  two  ways.  On  the  one  hand,  this  authority  was  not,  like 
all  sympathetic  authority  up  to  that  time,  an  ecclesiastical 
authority,  but  a  civil  authority.  To-day  that  would  make  a  great 
difference  in  the  valuation  of  that  authority,  and  in  the  respect 
paid  to  it  or  not  paid  to  it.  At  that  time  it  made  little  difference, 
save  in  a  favourable  direction.  The  Christians  were  only  too 
glad  to  forget  the  persecutions,  and  were  ready  to  welcome  in 
obedience  the  Christian  emperor.  And,  on  the  other  hand,  this 
authority  was  of  wide  domain.  Until  then  the  bishop  had  been 
the  highest  official  for  them.  Single  bishops  sometimes  attained 
to  a  wider  authority  by  courtesy,  reverence,  and  affection,  as  we 
saw  in  the  case  of  Dionysius  of  Corinth.  But  here  we  have  the 
emperor.  Now  the  Christians  have  in  Constantinople  a  new 
hold,  and  they  are  conversely  under  a  new  authority.  This  new 
authority  attached  to  the  new  centre  gives  to  Christianity  a 
new  impulse.  It  does  not  concern  us  here  whether  this  novelty 
was  a  blessing  or  a  curse  in  general.  We  have  to  do  with  its 
influence  upon  the  text. 

The  Greek  revision  of  the  text  of  the  New  Testament  of 
which  we  have  just  spoken,  appears  to  have  failed  to  impress 
itself  upon  distant  circles,  upon  Christian  churches  far  from 
Antioch,  though  it  doubtless  was  sometimes  copied  for  various 
churches.  So  long  as  this  revision  did  not  prevail,  the  tendency 
of  its  existence  was  to  make  matters  worse.  If  it  did  not  replace 
or  supplant  the  other  texts,  it  made  a  fourth  text  that  only 
increased  the  confusion. 

Now,  however,  the  Church  grows  and  flourishes  in  the  sun- 
shine of  imperial  favour.  The  Council  of  Nice  tends  to  make 
it  feel  its  oneness  and  its  power.     It  was  probably  towards  the 


EARLY   HISTORY   OF  TEXT— OFFICIAL   TEXT         50I 

middle  of  the  fourth  century  that  the  text  was  again  revised, 
and  again  at  Antioch.  For  this  revision,  Antioch  had  become 
all  the  more  probable,  appropriate,  and  practically  desirable  be- 
cause of  its  geographical  nearness  to,  and  because  of  its  political 
as  well  as  religious  connection  with,  Constantinople.  We  do  not 
need  to  discuss  at  length  the  possibilities  and  the  probabilities 
of  the  process  of  revision  at  this  time,  for  they  do  not  differ 
materially  from  the  conditions  considered  on  the  occasion  of 
that  preceding  revision,  save  in  so  far  that  a  revised  Greek  text, 
the  work  of  that  former  revision,  was  a  fourth  source  of  material. 

This  revision  contributed  still  further  to  make  the  text  of  the 
New  Testament  complete  in  the  sense  that  the  reviser  packed 
into  it  all  the  words  of  the  preceding  texts  that  he  could  well 
stow  away  in  it.  At  the  same  time  it  made  the  text  still  smoother 
and  weaker.  The  text  reached  herewith,  in  this  Church  text,  its 
greatest  distance  from  the  original  text.  This  text  is  the  worst 
text  in  existence.  But  it  was  born  under  a  lucky  constellation. 
Now,  there  was  a  central  authority  that  extended  farther  than  any 
bishopric.  And  the  bishops  who  enveloped  themselves  in  this 
authority  seem  to  have  at  once  taken  hold  of  this  new  revision 
and  to  have  spread  it  broadcast.  Now,  the  manuscripts  of  the 
older  texts  vanish,  just  as  the  Syrian  manuscripts  vanished  when 
their  text  had  been  revised  at  that  earlier  period.  Therefore 
we  may  term  this  last  and  worst  of  texts  the  Official  Text. 

Here  the  history  of  the  Greek  text  in  the  manuscripts  closes. 
I  say  history  in  the  pragmatic  sense.  From  this  time  onwards 
the  Greek  text  of  the  New  Testament,  having  been  reduced  to 
its  lowest  estate,  simply  lived  along.  It  had  no  more  experiences 
than  an  oyster  has  in  its  rocky  bed.  History  for  the  Greek  text 
begins  again  when  Fell  and  Mill  and  Bentley  and  Bengel  and 
Wettstein  and  Griesbach  and  Hug  and  Lachmann  and  Tischen- 
dorf  and  Tregelles  and  Westcott  and  Hort  draw  it  forth  from  the 
Slough  of  Despond  and  place  it  upon  the  high  road  leading 
to  its  pristine  purity.  That  worst  text  is,  so  far  as  the  Textus 
Receptus,  the  Received  Text,  is  made  fast  and  sure  in  Estienne's 
and  the  Elzevir  Texts,  the  text  for  which  so  many  theologians 
fought  for  long  years.  If  Lachmann  had  taken  that,  instead  of 
doing  the  good  critical  work  that  he  did  do,  he  would  have  had  the 
text  of  the  fourth  century  at  which  he  in  name  aimed  his  efforts. 


502  THE  TEXT 


Origin  of  Classes  of  Texts. 

We  can  now  return  to  a  matter  that  has  already  been  briefly 
mentioned,  but  which  we  are  now  prepared  to  treat  more  fully. 
I  refer  to  the  way  in  which  classes  of  texts  have  arisen  in  the 
New  Testament.  In  old  days  it  was  the  custom  to  say  and  to 
believe  that  the  classes  of  texts  in  the  New  Testament  arose 
from  the  errors  of  scribes,  that  they  were  the  usual  classes  known 
in  classical  philology,  and  that  intentional  change  had  nothing  to 
do  with  them.  It  has  more  than  once  been  asserted,  that  aside 
from  an  exceedingly  small  number  of  possibly  intentional  changes, 
perhaps  two  or  three,  the  New  Testament  enjoyed  the  pre- 
eminence of  having  a  text  that  no  one  had  changed  of  set 
purpose,  that  the  will  of  man  had  as  good  as  not  entered  into 
the  realm  of  this  textual  treasure. 

Having  passed  by  the  classes  of  the  text  in  rapid  review, 
we  are  in  a  position  now  to  say  that  precisely  the  contrary  is 
the  case.  It  is  true  tl  at  the  scribes  who  copied  the  manu- 
scripts of  the  New  Testament  remained  men  and  made  their 
usual  mistakes.  And  it  is  likewise  true  that  we  can  repeatedly 
with  their  errors  prove  the  existence  of  groups  of  manuscripts, 
just  as  in  the  documents  for  the  works  of  classical  authors. 
But  with  the  thousands  of  manuscripts  at  our  command,  such 
groups  are  in  the  textual  criticism  of  the  New  Testament  a 
very  subsidiary  matter.  We  are  glad  to  observe  them  and  to 
apply  them  as  a  means  of  reducing  the  number  of  manuscripts  in 
our  hands,  by  leading  half  a  dozen  manuscripts  back  to  their 
one  source.  For  determining  the  text  they  are  much  too  far  from 
the  centre  of  observation.  These  groups  are  not  formed  by  acts 
of  intention,  but  by  unintentional  mistakes.  These  groups  have 
not  the  least  in  the  world  to  do  with  the  formation  of  the  four 
or  five  classes  of  text  of  which  we  have  here  treated. 

In  the  face  of  all  that  has  been  repeated  for  many  years,  the 
classes  of  which  we  have  spoken  have  nothing  to  do  with 
unintentional  change.  They  are  the  results  of  the  purpose  of 
many  persons.  Advancing  from  the  Original  Text  we  come  first 
of  all  to  the  Re- Wrought  Text,  and  see  in  it  the  results  of  the 
action  of  the  wills  of  various  men  at  various  times  in  various 
countries.     These  men  did  not  just  by  accident,  without  seeing 


EARLY   HISTORY   OF   TEXT— ORIGIN   OF  CLASSES      503 

what  they  were  about,  add  here  a  word  and  there  a  word. 
They  had  their  eyes  open  and  their  heads  clear,  and  they 
wished  to  make  the  text  before  them  better,  and  to  their  way 
of  thinking  they  did  make  it  better.  What  they  did  they  willed 
to  do.  Precisely  the  same  was  the  case  with  the  scholars  who 
prepared  the  Polished  Text.  They  filed  here  and  altered  there, 
and  used  their  philological  acumen  in  order  to  secure  the  best 
results.  It  was  all  the  work  of  will,  not  of  accident.  It  is  not 
necessary  to  follow  up  the  two  texts  that  were  last  produced. 
For  they  were  directly  the  product,  as  we  saw,  of  the  effort  to 
make  things  better.  The  fact  that  the  chance  mistakes  of  the 
scribes  do  not  cause  classes  of  this  kind  is  then  made  clear  by 
a  view  of  the  history  of  the  texts. 

A  mathematician  might  make  for  us  some  equations  or  solve 
some  problems  for  us.  If  the  unintentional  errors  of  the  early 
Christians  produced  within  a  century  or  a  century  and  a  half 
the  text  we  name  the  Re-Wrought  Text,  and  if  further  un- 
intentional errors  in  a  further  century  and  a  half  produced  the 
Official  Text,  what  must  unintentional  errors  have  produced  in 
the  way  of  change,  disorder,  and  confusion  in  the  course  of  the 
following  eleven  centuries  before  the  text  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment was  printed?  And  then  we  perceive  that  at  the  end  of 
the  eleven  centuries  the  text  is  to  all  intents  and  purposes 
precisely  where  it  was  and  in  the  condition  in  which  it  was 
at  the  beginning  of  the  eleven  centuries.  It  is  of  no  avail  to 
say  that  Greek  had  become  a  "dead"  language,  and  that  the 
scribes  therefore  were  ignorant  and  kept  slavishly  to  their  text 
during  the  eleven  centuries.  In  the  first  place,  the  Greek 
language  is  not  yet  dead,  as  anyone  can  settle  for  himself  by 
a  journey  from  Messina,  or  Trieste,  around  the  Mediterranean, 
including  the  ^gean  and  the  Black  Sea,  to  Alexandria.  In  the 
second  place,  the  "  death  "  of  the  language  and  the  ignorance  of 
scribes  would  only  have  heightened,  in  no  case  lessened,  the 
number,  the  pernicious  effect,  and  the  class-making  influence 
of  unintentional  mistakes. 

What  unintentional  errors  and  faults  did  not  do  in  eleven 
centuries  they  certainly  could  not  have  done  in  either  one  of 
the  periods  of  a  century  and  a  half  before  the  eleven  centuries. 
The  classes  of  text  in  the  New  Testament  are  solely  the  result 
of  arbitrary,  that  is,  willed  action. 


504 


THE  TEXT 


If  those  who  wish  to  find  in  the  history  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment text  excellent  care,  and  who  in  pursuance  of  that  wish 
have  urged  the  lack  of  wilful  change,  would  formulate  their 
statement  more  guardedly,  there  would  be  less  difficulty  in  ac- 
cepting their  contention.  There  are  a  few  cases  in  the  New 
Testament  in  which,  as  we  may  see,  for  example,  in  John  7^ 
changes  have  been  made  for  a  definite  purpose  which  we  might 
call  dogmatical  or  even  apologetical.  In  the  verse  mentioned 
Jesus  says :  "  I  go  not  up  to  this  feast,"  using  the  phrase  which 
was  rendered  in  Greek  by  ovk  dva/?atV(u.  Some  good  Christian  in 
early  times,  reading  this  and  finding  two  verses  later  that  Jesus 
actually  did  go  up  to  that  feast,  said  to  himself  apparently  :  "  That 
cannot  be.  Jesus  cannot  have  said  that  He  was  not  going  up 
to  the  feast.  He  can  only  have  said  that  He  did  not  intend 
to  go  at  that  moment.  He  must  have  left  room  open  for  His 
later  going  up  to  Jerusalem."  And  therefore  this  Christian  wrote 
over  the  ovk  or  on  the  margin  beside  ovk  the  word  oi;7rw,  "not 
yet,"  and  caused  Jesus  to  say  :  "  I  am  not  going  up  to  this  feast 
yet."  There  are,  in  my  opinion,  not  many  cases  of  this  kind  in 
the  New  Testament.  And  if  therefore  those  who  have  wished  to 
exclude  intentional  change  altogether  from  the  fortunes  of  the 
text  of  the  New  Testament  would  but  limit  their  statement  to 
the  observation  that  changes  of  such  a  dogmatical  or  apologeti- 
cal character  are  rare  in  that  text,  it  would  not  be  hard  to  agree 
with  them. 

Pondering  over  the  presentation  of  the  course  of  the  history 
of  the  text  here  given,  it  would  be  possible  for  a  thinking,  an 
active  mind  to  ask  what  the  explanation  is  for  the  circumstance 
that  four  or  five  classes  of  text  were  made  during  the  first  four 
centuries,  or  about  within  the  years  from  100  to  350,  and  that 
absolutely  none  were  thereafter  produced.  The  answer  is  not  far 
to  seek.  Each  of  those  classes  of  the  text  had  its  reason  for 
being  made.  The  Re-Wrought  Text  applied  the  then  still 
flourishing  written  and  oral  tradition  of  the  apostolic  age  to  the 
enriching  and  the  embellishing  of  the  text.  The  Polished  Text 
sought  to  remove  the  comparative  uncouthness  of  the  primitive 
form  for  polite  ears.  And  the  two  revisions  which  culminated 
in  the  Official  Text  had  for  their  purpose  the  unifying  of  the 
contradictory  or  varying  forms  of  the  text,  as  well  as  the  simplify- 
ing and  smoothing  off  of  its  language.     Everyone  of  these  reasons 


EARLY   HISTORY   OF   TEXT— ORIGIN    OF   CLASSES      505 

attaches  to  an  early  date  in  the  life  of,  or  in  the  development  of, 
a  text.  No  such  reason  could  arise  to  demand  a  new  class  of 
text,  after  the  whole  Greek  Church  had  at  the  beck  of  authority 
acquiesced  in  the  weak  and  poor  text  of  the  revision  of  the 
fourth  century.  It  was  left  for  the  impulse  of  modern  science  to 
discover  by  a  long  series  of  efforts  the  probable  sources  and 
causes  and  courses  of  the  movements  in  and  changes  in  the 
text,  and  to  endeavour  by  reversing  the  wheel  of  time  to  undo 
the  false  development,  and  to  reach  in  skilful  unravelling  of  the 
lines  of  tradition  the  Original  Text. 

Should  this  action  of  modern  science  prove  even  but  to 
a  certain  extent  successful,  it  will  have  great  value.  If  the 
researches  into  the  earlier  years  of  Christianity  receive  in  the 
future  as  in  the  past,  as  I  confidently  expect,  many  new  docu- 
ments for  the  period  from  90  to  200  a.d.,  and  if  these  documents 
sustain  the  theory  as  to  the  early  facts  of  the  text  that  Westcott 
and  Hort  framed,  then  we  shall  be  able  to  develop  it  in  a  more 
complete  manner,  particularly  in  the  direction  of  new  editions  of 
the  early  writers.  I  have  written:  "sustain  the  theory."  That 
does  not  mean  that  I  look  for,  or  that  ^Vestcott  and  Hort  looked 
for,  a  precise  corroboration  of  every  suggestion  in,  of  every  rami- 
fication of,  their  hypothesis.  What  they  gave  us  was  a  hypothesis 
to  work  upon,  the  best  they  then  could  make.  Had  they  lived 
they  would  have  modified  the  hypothesis  with  new  discoveries. 
We  must  modify  it  for  them,  when  the  new  discoveries  come. 
The  sustaining  of  their  theory  to  which  I  allude  is  then  a  general 
one,  and  not  necessarily  one  that  goes  into  all  details. 

So  far  as  I  can  judge  of  a  number  of  the  efforts  that  have 
been  made  since  the  year  1881  to  do  something  new  in  the  field 
of  textual  criticism,  these  efforts  have  laboured  under  three  dis- 
advantages which  have  impaired  their  effect  or  have  rendered 
them  comparatively  fruitless. 

In  the  first  place,  these  efforts  were  partial,  not  general. 
That  was  not  singular.  The  great  knowledge  of  the  Church 
writers  and  of  the  ins  and  outs  of  Christian  literature  that 
Westcott  and  Hort  possessed  cannot  be  matched  in  a  couple 
of  years  of  desultory  reading  that  dips  here  or  there  into  the 
field.  It  was  further  not  singular,  because  these  efforts  were 
sometimes  the  happy  thoughts  of  specialists  in  limited  fields  who 
had  neither  inclination  nor  time  to  occupy  themselves  with  the 


5o6  THE  TEXT 

whole  subject.  Yet  precisely  such  researches,  such  contributions 
of  men  who  were  masters  of  a  circumscribed  domain,  were  and 
remain  desirable. 

But  in  the  second  place,  if  I  do  not  err,  these  partial  efforts, 
every  one  of  which,  like  every  careful  bit  of  work  in  any  depart- 
ment, was  welcome,  failed  partly  to  have  the  desired  effect  because 
of  their  antagonistic  attitude  over  against  the  hypothesis  which 
Westcott  and  Hort  had  presented.  To  be  very  plain,  the 
scholars  who  made  these  partial  researches  did  not  say :  "  I 
have  observed  these  facts.  Let  us  see  whether  we  can  range 
them  under  the  given  theory  or  whether  they  demand  a  change 
in  the  theory."  On  the  contrary,  they  said :  "  This  theory  is 
all  wrong.  For  I  have  observed  here  a  trifle  which  I  cannot 
make  square  with  the  theory." 

And  in  the  third  place,  this  antagonism  against  the  theory 
and  the  failure  to  recognise  the  coincidence  between  the  newly 
found  facts  and  the  theory  has,  I  think,  in  several  instances  been 
due  to  an  imperfect  conception  of  the  theory.  The  hypothesis 
of  Westcott  and  Hort  is  given  in  Hort's  book,  the  introductory 
volume  to  their  edition,  in  an  exceedingly  cautious  manner,  so 
that  it  is  not  easy,  I  think,  for  a  hurried  reader  to  be  sure  of  their 
full  intention.  I  remember  one  page  which  I  wished  to  have 
made  more  clear,  but  which  seemed  to  the  editor  to  leave  nothing 
to  be  desired.  At  a  later  date,  after  the  book  had  been  issued, 
I  made  two  columns  on  a  page  of  paper  and  wrote  in  one 
column  the  text  of  the  given  paragraph.  In  the  other  column 
I  re-wrote  the  sense  in  my  own  words  up  to  the  point  at  which  I 
could  not  tell  what  to  write.  Then  the  editor  gave  me  the  clue. 
I  refer  to  this  simply  to  show  that  in  a  field  that  contains  so 
many  and  such  different  parts  a  theory  dealing  with  the  whole 
may  fail  to  be  easy  of  comprehension  for  one  whose  time  does; 
not  allow  him  to  consider  it  at  length.  This  refers,  as  is  evident, 
to  those  who  have  gained  their  knowledge  of  the  theory  from 
Hort's  own  book. 

Apparently,  however,  some  have  taken  their  view  of  the 
theory  from  brief,  tabular  statements  made  about  it.  It  is  there- 
fore desirable  to  remind  scholars  of  Hort's  thoughts  upon  this 
subject.  I  had  asked  him,  urged  him,  to  make  in  his  volume 
a  short  and  skeleton-like  review  of  what  the  two  editors  aimed 
at,  and  of  the  facts  of  early  textual  history  as  they  presented 


EARLY   HISTORY   OF   TEXT  507 

themselves  to  the  eyes  of  the  editors.  He  replied  that  he, 
and  I  think  Westcott  also,  had  tried  to  make  such  a  summary 
presentation,  but  had  not  succeeded.  This  was,  I  think,  to  a 
large  extent  the  result  of  their  great  knowledge  and  their  great 
modesty.  Every  curt,  combining,  crystallising  sentence  that 
they  formulated  met  at  once  in  their  brains  such  a  multitude 
of  contrary  or  divergent  considerations  as  to  be  impossible  for 
them.  It  is  the  man  who  knows  little  who  is  "absolutely 
certain."  He  does  not  know  the  limits  of  his  knowledge.  I 
succeeded  in  getting  from  them  what  I  suppose  to  be  the  only 
existing  brief,  authentic  exposition  of  their  theory.  But  even  this 
short  statement,  this  authentic  one,  can  in  no  wise  replace  the 
study  of  their  book  for  anyone  who  makes  the  most  distant 
pretensions  to  form  a  judgment  as  to  the  correctness  or  the 
faultiness  or  the  worthlessness  of  their  theory.  If  those  who 
combat  the  hypothesis  of  Westcott  and  Hort  would  first  be 
willing  to  take  the  pains  to  read  Hort's  book  carefully,  we  should 
less  frequently  find  them  urging  as  new  objections  to  that 
hypothesis  considerations  which  Westcott  and  Hort  themselves 
presented  to  the  public. 

We  have  dwelt  long  enough  upon  the  theory  of  the  origin 
and  early  history  of  the  text.  No  one  can  tell  how  long  it  will 
be  before  we  are  sure  of  the  correctness  of  that  theory,  or  are 
able  to  replace  it  by  a  better  one.  In  the  meantime  the  Church, 
Christianity,  Christian  theologians  need  a  Greek  New  Testament. 
There  is  no  danger  of  anyone's  trying  to  stop  all  preaching  until 
the  text  of  the  New  Testament  is  finally  settled.  That  would  be 
absurd.  For  preaching  did  not  begin  with  the  New  Testament. 
Preaching,  vivid  work  in  the  Church,  preceded  by  years  the 
New  Testament.  And  no  one  can  venture  to  say  that  the 
theological  study  of  the  New  Testament  must  halt  until  the  text 
has  been  made  absolutely  perfect.  Theology  must  be  moving 
on  with  its  other  tasks  as  well  as  with  those  in  textual  criticism. 
We  are  bound  to  make  to-day  the  best  text  we  can,  and  to  use 
that  text  diligently  and  undoubtingly.  If  that  be  the  case. 
Christians  have  a  right  to  ask  textual  critics  whether  the  text 
that  can  be  determined  to-day  is  in  the  main  a  reliable  text. 

We  can  divide  the  consideration  of  this  thought  into  two  parts, 
a  more  negative  and  a  more  positive  one.  It  is  on  the  one  hand 
of  first  importance  for  Christian  theologians  to  be  assured  that 


508  THE   TEXT 

what  they  have  before  them  in  the  New  Testament  is  really  in  the 
main  New  Testament,  really  is  a  part  of  the  books  to  which  it 
is  alleged  to  belong.  Should  we  be  compelled  when  commenting 
upon  the  text  of  the  New  Testament,  or  when  trying  to  draw 
from  its  pages  arguments  for  our  views,  or  when  seeking  comfort 
and  counsel  in  it — should  we  be  compelled  at  every  instant  to 
bear  in  mind  the  possibility  that  the  whole  paragraph  upon  which 
we  have  fixed  our  thoughts  might  as  a  matter  of  fact  not  be  a 
part  of  the  book  in  which  it  stood,  might  be  a  spurious  inter- 
polation, our  thoughts  would  be  confused  and  lamed.  It  is  there- 
fore of  cardinal  importance  that  textual  criticism  place  before 
Christians  one  result  of  the  work  of  the  past  two  centuries.  That 
result  is,  that  we  have  no  ground  for  assuming  that,  no  ground  to 
suspect  that,  no  ground  to  fear  that  any  large  sections  that  we 
consider  to-day  to  be  a  part  of  the  text  of  the  New  Testament 
will  ever  be  proved  not  to  belong  to  it.  Textual  criticism  has 
determined,  I  think  finally  and  irrevocably,  that  three  passages 
form  no  part  of  the  text.  Aside  from  an  omission  or  two  of 
verses  that  have  crept  in  from  parallel  passages  and  have  no 
interest  for  us,  there  are  three  other  passages,  of  not  more  than 
two  verses  each,  that  are  probably  spurious.  Aside  from  these, 
I  think  we  may  say  that  the  text  of  the  New  Testament  is  in 
the  main  assured.  We  have  succeeded  in  gaining  such  a  control 
of  the  realm  of  testimony  and  such  a  comprehensive  view  of  it, 
that  surprises  in  this  direction  seem  to  be  excluded.  Textual 
criticism  will  not  again  be  called  upon  to  decide  whether  a 
whole  series  of  verses  belong  to  a  New  Testament  book  or  not. 
That  is  the  way  in  which  the  case  presents  itself  to  us  to-day.  Are 
we  deceived,  will  textual  criticism  at  some  future  day  have  to 
cut  out  parts  of,  say  Second  Corinthians,  and  recombine  the 
remnants, — I  at  least  do  not  now  know  that,  nor  do  I  in  the 
least  anticipate  it.  In  this  respect,  in  respect  to  the  future 
excision  of  larger  portions  of  the  text,  the  New  Testament 
is  safe. 

Interesting  Passages. — First  John  5^-^. 

It  will  not  be  uninteresting  to  cast  a  glance  at  the  passages 
referred  to,  to  the  three  that  beyond  all  doubt  form  no  part  of 
the  New  Testament,  and  to  the  other  three  that  probably  do  not 


EARLY   HISTORY   OF   TEXT— I  JOHN  5^-8  509 

belong  to  it.  They  are  for  the  most  part  of  a  character  foreign 
to  the  rest  of  the  text,  so  that  we  can  easily  let  them  go.  The 
one  passage  in  the  New  Testament  of  our  ancestors  which  had 
not  the  slightest  claim  to  a  place  in  it  was  the  passage,  to  which 
I  alluded  a  while  back,  in  the  First  Epistle  of  John.  In  First 
John  5"-^  the  text  of  the  New  Testament  reads:  "For  there 
are  three  that  bear  witness,  the  spirit  and  the  water  and  the 
blood,  and  the  three  are  one."  There  is  a  corrupt  Latin  text 
which  says :  "  There  are  three  that  bear  witness  on  earth,  the 
spirit,  water,  and  blood,  and  these  three  are  one  in  Christ  Jesus. 
And  there  are  three  that  speak  testimony  in  heaven,  the  Father, 
the  Word,  and  the  Spirit."  That  corrupt  text  put  in  the  words 
"  in  earth  "  and  "  in  Christ  Jesus  "  and  the  whole  sentence  about 
the  heavenly  witnesses.  Now,  these  words  have  not  the  least 
shadow  of  a  right  to  a  place  in  the  text  of  the  New  Testament. 
We  may  begin  with  the  latest  treatment  of  the  question.  Karl 
Kiinstle  argues  with  great  learning  and  apparently  with  great 
justice  that  this  passage  is  to  be  attributed  to  PrisciUian.  Let 
me  observe  by  way  of  parenthesis  that  the  passage  has  a  number 
of  quite  different  forms.  PrisciUian  was  a  heretical  Spanish 
bishop  of  the  fourth  century.  It  is  one  of  the  curious  contrasts 
of  life  and  history  that  this  text  should  be  traced  back  to  this 
heretic.  Since  the  printing  of  the  New  Testament,  and  Erasmus' 
fatal  promise  to  insert  the  verse  if  it  should  be  found  in  a  Greek 
manuscript,  it  has  been  the  habit  of  the  friends  of  the  verse  to 
claim  it  as  the  great  proof-text  of  the  New  Testament  for  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  What  would  PrisciUian  say  to  that ! 
For  PrisciUian  did  not  hold  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  He 
was  very  much  of  a  Manichaean.  His  views  were,  we  may  say, 
a  Gnostic  Dualism.  He  taught  not  pantheism,  but  Pan-Christism. 
And  the  text  that  came  from  him  is  claimed  for  the  Trinity. 
That  is  very  odd.  But  it  does  not  belong  in  the  New  Testament, 
as  we  have  said. 

It  has  been  said  to  be  in  three  Greek  manuscripts.  Now, 
one  of  the  three  is  that  Codex  Montfortianus  at  Dublin,  of 
which  I  spoke  above  (see  page  374).  The  two  points  to  be 
emphasised  about  it  are,  in  the  first  place,  that  the  Greek 
text  here  was  changed  so  as  to  conform  to  the  Latin  text  of 
the  passage ;  and  in  the  second  place,  that  the  Epistles  in  this 
manuscript  were  written  about  the  time  at  which  Erasmus,  after 


510  THE  TEXT 

printing  two  editions  of  his  Greek  New  Testament  without  tlie 
verse,  had  promised  to  put  the  verse  in  if  it  were  found  in 
a  Greek  manuscript.  Thus  far  no  positive  proof  thereof  has 
been  found,  but  it  is  in  every  way  probable  that  this  copy  of  the 
Epistles  was  written,  and  that  these  words  were  here  put  in,  in 
less  correct  or  less  fitting  Greek  as  drawn  from  the  Latin,  for  the 
purpose  of  forcing  Erasmus  to  print  the  verses,  as  he  then  did. 
]n  no  case  has  this  manuscript  of  the  sixteenth  century  a  particle 
of  value  for  the  Greek  text  in  general,  let  alone  for  a  verse  which 
its  scribe  evidently  took  from  the  Latin. 

The  second  Greek  manuscript  which  is  cited  for  these  three 
heavenly  witnesses  is  a  manuscript  of  the  fourteenth  century  in 
the  Vatican  Library  at  Rome.  We  can  here  see  plainly  that 
the  words  are  taken  from  the  Latin.  The  manuscript  is  in  two 
columns.  Here  the  left-hand  column  is  Latin  and  the  right- 
hand  Greek,  and  the  text  in  the  two  languages  corresponds 
as  nearly  as  may  be  line  for  line.  Therefore  the  scribe  has 
translated  the  Latin  words  for  those  lines  into  Greek.  He 
agrees  with  the  man  who  made  the  bad  translation  in  the  Codex 
Montfortianus  in  leaving  out  the  article  in  the  case  of  the 
heavenly  witnesses,  but  he  gives  it,  as  he  will  have  found  it  in 
his  Greek  text,  for  the  witnesses  on  earth.  The  scribe  of  the 
Montfortianus  left  it  out  there  too.  But  the  translation  is  a 
different  one. 

And  finally,  the  third  Greek  manuscript  is  one  at  Naples, 
which,  however,  has  the  usual  Greek  text  without  the  heavenly 
witnesses.  Some  modern  hand  has  written  the  heavenly  wit- 
nesses on  the  margin.  So  we  see  that  these  three  alleged 
witnesses  in  favour  of  the  three  heavenly  witnesses  prove  to 
be  nothing  but  witnesses  against  the  authenticity  of  the  text. 
The  facts  which  I  have  here  stated  are  nothing  new.  Yet  a 
Roman  Catholic  edition  of  the  Greek  New  Testament  which 
claims  to  be  constituted  according  to  the  ancient  manuscripts 
has  just  been  issued,  for  I  think  the  third  time,  containing  this 
verse  without  note  or  comment  and  with  no  allusion  to  it  in 
the  critical  notes.  Such  an  edition  is  insupportable  when  we 
consider  the  learning  of  the  Roman  Catholic  theologians.  Why, 
it  is  precisely  a  Roman  Catholic  professor  of  theology  who  has 
shown  that  these  words  come  from  a  heretic.  And  nevertheless 
Ijiandscheid  ventured  to  publish   them    as  good  scripture  with 


EARLY   HISTORY  OF   TEXT— MARK  1 6^-20  51 1 

episcopal  approbation.  No  one  can  to-day  complain  that  textual 
criticism  has  done  wrong  in  thrusting  these  spurious  words  out 
of  the  text  of  the  New  Testament.  The  pity  is  only  that  they 
have  been  allowed  for  so  long  a  time  to  usurp  a  place  upon 
the  pages  of  the  New  Testament,  and  that  a  theologian  could  in 
the  twentieth  century  still  be  found  so  devoid  of  critical  insight 
as  to  publish  them  as  a  part  of  the  sacred  text. 


Mark  i69-20. 

Another  passage  that  textual  criticism  has  shown  to  have  no 
right  to  a  place  in  the  text  of  the  New  Testament  is  the  close  of 
the  Gospel  according  to  Mark  as  it  stands  in  the  common 
editions.  Mark  i6^-^*^  is  neither  part  nor  parcel  of  that  Gospel. 
Many  a  question  suggests  itself  to  the  textual  critic  when  he  looks 
at  these  verses.  We  cannot  tell  what  happened  to  this  Gospel. 
What  we  now  have  left  of  the  original  Gospel  stops  off  short 
with  the  Greek  word  ydp,  "  for  "  :  "  For  they  were  afraid."  The 
first  supposition  would  appear  to  be  that  Mark  had  been 
interrupted  in  writing,  but  on  second  thoughts  we  cannot  approve 
of  that  view.  Mark  doubtless  lived  longer,  and  could  have  con- 
tinued and  closed  his  book  again  before  publishing  it.  Another 
supposition  would  be  that  the  last  sentence  we  have  of  the 
original  was  at  the  foot  of  one  of  the  columns  towards  the  end 
of  the  roll,  and  that  the  last  columns  had  been  lost  from  the 
first  or  from  a  very  early  copy,  and  that  all  subsequent  copies 
came  from  the  imperfect  volume. 

And  taking  up  the  other  side,  the  question  arises,  whence  the 
present  verses  ^-^^  came.  A  few  years  ago  no  one  could  answer 
that  question.  Now  we  can  answer  it,  for  Frederick  Cornwallis 
Conybeare  found  an  old  Armenian  manuscript  that  named  these 
verses  as  from  the  Presbyter  Aristion,  and  thus  far  no  good  reason 
has  been  found  for  doubting  his  authorship.  Aristion  is  called 
by  Papias  a  disciple  of  the  Lord,  and  his  words  are  every  whit  as 
good  as  Mark's  words.  But  they  do  not  belong  here.  They  are 
not  a  part  of  the  New  Testament,  and  they  were  probably  added 
at  this  ninth  verse  in  Asia  Minor  at  the  close  of  the  first  or  the 
beginning  of  the  second  century.  It  has  been  suggested  that 
the  real  end  of  Mark  was  purposely  cut  off  by  a  man  who  did 


512  THE  TEXT 

not  like  it,  and  who  chose  to  replace  it  by  the  passage  from 
Aristion.  That  does  not  seem  to  me  to  be  probable,  and  for 
a  very  commonplace  practical  reason.  If  a  chance  critic  should 
have  cut  away  the  end  and  replaced  it  thus,  one  of  two  things 
would  have  happened.  Either  we  should  have  had  manuscripts 
with  the  proper  ending,  the  manuscripts,  that  is  to  say,  which  that 
critic  could  not  reach,  and  the  manuscripts  which  we  have  with 
this  Aristion  ending ;  or,  if  the  critic  had  all  in  his  hand,  we 
should  only  have  had  manuscripts  with  this  Aristion  ending. 

Now  neither  of  these  things  is  the  actual  case.  We  have 
very  old  manuscripts  which  close  blankly  with  that  word  ydp,  as 
if  their  scribes  had  never  thought  or  heard  of  anything  after  it. 
Then,  of  course,  we  have  manuscripts  with  this  common  Aristion 
ending.  And — here  is  the  still  stranger  thing,  but  as  it  seems  to 
me  the  proof  that  the  Gospel  was  wandering  about  without  a 
close — we  have  in  the  manuscripts  a  totally  different  ending.  A 
manuscript  I  found  at  Mount  Athos  twenty  years  ago  continues 
after  the  ydp :  "  And  all  the  things  announced  to  those  about 
Peter  briefly,  they  spread  abroad.  And  after  that  Jesus  also 
Himself  appeared  from  east,  and  up  to  west  He  sent  out  by  them 
the  sacred  and  incorrupted  preaching  of  the  eternal  salvation. 
Amen.  And  this  also  is  found  after  the  '  For  they  were  afraid,' " 
and  then  follows  the  Aristion  ending.  Now,  that  seems  to  me 
to  show  conclusively  the  same  thing  that  our  old  manuscripts 
show,  namely,  that  this  Gospel  was  spread  abroad  in  ancient 
times  without  the  proper  ending.  Seeing  the  wide  prevalence 
of  the  Gospel  without  an  ending  or  with  one  of  the  false  endings, 
the  necessary  conclusion  is  that  the  curtailing  took  place  at  an 
extremely  early  date.  I  regard  it  nevertheless  as  one  of  the 
possibilities  of  future  finds  that  we  receive  this  Gospel  with  its 
own  authentic  finish.  Mark  has  been  connected  with  Alexandria. 
May  Grenfell  and  Hunt  add  to  their  numerous  gifts  the  close 
of  the  original  Mark  from  an  Egyptian  papyrus. 

What  I  said  a  moment  ago  must,  however,  now  be  repeated 
and  emphasised.  It  sometimes  seems  to  Christian  laymen  as  if 
textual  critics  warred  upon  the  New  Testament.  If  the  textual 
critics  did  not  like  the  New  Testament  they  would  surely  find  no 
difficulty  in  discovering  other  objects  of  study  that  they  liked. 
They  work  upon  the  New  Testament  because  it  appears  to  them 
to  be  in  an  especial  manner  worthy  of  their  highest  efforts.     Here 


EARLY   HISTORY  OF   TEXT— JOHN  f^^-S^^  513 

is  a  case.  These  closing  verses  of  Mark  positively  do  not  belong 
to  this  Gospel,  positively  have  no  right  to  be  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. If  I  said  that  they  did  belong  to  this  Gospel  I  should  speak 
as  direct  an  untruth  as  if  I  should  insist  upon  it  that  Moscow  was 
a  city  in  Spain.  The  kind  of  assertion  would  be  different,  the 
untruth  would  be  equal  or  even  greater.  But  in  spite  of  all  that, 
I  insist  upon  the  words  above.  These  words  of  Aristion's  are  as 
good  as  or,  if  you  please,  better  than  Mark's  words ;  for  all  that 
they  are  not  a  part  of  Mark's  Gospel.  A  Christian  may  read, 
enjoy,  ponder  them,  and  be  thankful  for  them  as  much  as  he 
pleases.  The  textual  critic  will  in  no  wise  hinder  him.  The 
critic  has  but  to  study  the  question  of  belonging  or  not  belonging 
to  the  text.  No  one  thing  in  reference  to  the  Gospel  of  Mark 
could  afford  the  textual  critic  greater  pleasure  than  the  finding 
of  the  words  with  which  Mark  continued  the  text  after  ydp  and 
finished  his  Gospel. 

John  f^-S^K 

The  third  of  the  passages  that  are  beyond  all  doubt  proven 
not  to  belong  to  the  New  Testament  is  just  about  of  the  same 
length  as  the  verses  Mark  16^-2*^,  or  about  of  one  hundred  and 
sixty-six  words,  varying  according  to  the  readings  chosen.  I 
refer  to  John  y^^-S^^,  the  story  of  the  Adulteress,  a  story  that 
has  for  centuries  been  a  comfort  to  repentant  sinners,  whether 
men  or  women,  and  whatever  the  sin  was  of  which  they  had 
been  guilty.  I  do  not  doubt  that  this  story  is  a  true  story, 
and  that  it  has  exercised  its  charm  in  oral  and  then  in  written 
tradition  since  the  day  on  which  the  woman  stood  before  Jesus. 
The  only  reason  I  could  think  of  for  questioning  its  historical 
accuracy  is  the  circumstance  that  no  one  of  the  four  evangelists 
relates  it.  And  yet  we  must  remember  how  much  there  was  to 
be  told.  The  world  itself  would  not  have  contained  the  books 
if  all  were  to  have  been  written  down.  And  our  view  of  the  most 
beautiful  or  the  most  striking  or  the  most  touching  scene  may 
in  some  cases  be  different  from  that  of  the  evangelists.  This 
story,  these  verses,  have  had  a  most  singular  fate  in  the  life  of 
Christianity,  so  that  one  scarcely  knows  where  to  begin  or  where 
to  end  about  them.  The  verses  y^^  ^nd  8\  and  in  part  8^,  have 
to  a  great  extent  been  kept  separate  from  the  verses  8^  or  ^  to  ^1, 
33 


514  THE  TEXT 

seeing  that  the  lesson  containing  this  story  usually  began  with 
82  or  3.  It  is  further  to  be  observed  that  there  is  a  certain 
likeness  between  the  verses  'j^^-S^  and  Luke  2i^'^-2^,  which  per- 
haps was  one  reason  for  the  insertion  of  the  story  at  the  latter 
point  in  a  group  of  Calabrian  manuscripts. 

In  one  respect  there  seems  to  be  a  similarity  in  the  textual 
fortunes  of  this  section  and  of  the  book  of  Revelation.  The  great 
favour  that  that  book  found  in  the  eyes  of  the  earliest  Church  led, 
I  think,  to  its  being  at  that  time  altered  in  its  text  more  than  any 
other  book  of  the  whole  New  Testament.  This  section  about  the 
Adulteress  was  probably  the  most  read  single  section  in  the  whole 
history  of  the  Church.  We  learn  from  Eusebius  that  it  was  in  the 
Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews.  Yet  his  reference  to  its  being 
there  seems  to  indicate  that  that  was  but  one  of  the  places  in 
which  it  was  found.  If  I  am  not  mistaken,  there  are  in  the 
whole  New  Testament  no  other  dozen  verses  that  exhibit  such 
a  manifold  variation  of  reading.  It  is  a  section  that  in  reference 
to  its  textual  history  and  textual  character  stands  totally  alone. 
This  multifariousness  of  form  I  am  inclined  to  connect  with  its 
having  been  so  very  often  read,  and  especially  at  a  very  early 
time.  It  would,  I  confess  also,  be  possible  to  argue  that  its 
readings  were  the  more  readily  changed  because  it  often  stood 
outside  of  the  frame  of  the  Gospel.  Many  a  hand  seems  to  have 
changed  trifles  in  the  wording  here  and  there. 

One  of  the  forms  of  change  in  the  eighth  and  ninth  verses 
makes  the  narrative  in  the  highest  degree  dramatic,  and  places 
what  we  might  call  the  possibilities  of  the  scene  in  the  most  living 
and  moving  manner  before  our  eyes.  It  is  scarcely  conceivable 
^that  this  peculiar  change  of  which  I  am  speaking  go  back  to  a 
more  correct  form  of  the  Aramaic  oral  tradition.  It  is  therefore 
probably  a  late  invention.  It  is  found  chiefly  in  manuscripts  now 
on  Mount  Athos,  and  may  have  started  there.  This  most  radical 
of  all  the  changes  is  the  following.  At  the  close  of  the  eighth 
verse,  when  Jesus  again  turns  away  from  the  Pharisees  and  again 
writes  on  the  ground,  we  are  told  what  He  wrote.  For  the 
sentence  is  made  to  say  :  He  wrote  upon  the  ground  the  sins 
of  each  single  one  of  them.  Of  course,  that  is  aimed  at  these 
accusing  Pharisees.  We  see  the  people  crowding  around  Jesus. 
In  the  midst  of  the  group  are  a  half  a  dozen  or  more  scribes  and 
Pharisees,  who  have  brought  the  woman  to  Jesus  and  have  stated 


EARLY  HISTORY  OF  TEXT— JOHN  /^S-gn  515 

her  sin.     They  think  to  lay  a  snare  for  Him.     They  have  no  fear 
for  themselves.     The   ninth  verse  completes    the   change    that 
turns  the  tables  upon   the  Pharisees.     It  does  not  read :  And 
they  when  they  heard  it.     It  reads :  And  they  when  they  read 
it.     The  Pharisees  accused   the  woman.     Jesus  wrote   on    the 
ground,    affecting   not    to    hear   them,   as   also   an    old    reading 
suggests.     They  badger  Him  until  He  looks  up  at  them  and 
curtly  says :  He  that  is  without  sin  among  you  let  him  first  cast 
a  stone  at  her.     And  then  He  stoops  down  and  again  writes 
upon  the  ground.     What  is  He  writing  there?     The  foremost 
Pharisee  is  of  course  the  oldest.     It  was  his  right  to  be  in  front. 
He  looks  down  at  the  sand  at  the  word  that  Jesus  has  just 
written,  and  sees  there  the  name  of  a  great  sin  that  he  has 
done,  but  which  he  thinks  is  known  to  no  one.     Like  a  flash 
his  conscience  wakens.     Verse  ninth  says  :  And  they,  when  they 
read  it,  being  convicted  by  their  conscience,  went  out  one  by  one, 
beginning  from  the  eldest  unto  the  last.     This  oldest  Pharisee 
has  turned  and  edged  his  way  out  of  the  crowd  as  fast  as  he 
could.     Jesus  has  swept  His  hand  across  the  sand  to  smoothe 
it  over,  and  has  again  written  something.     This  word  the  next 
Pharisee  reads,  and  recognising  a  hidden  sin  of  his  own  he  too 
flees.     And  thus  it  goes  on  till  the  accusers  are  all  away.     And 
Jesus  is  left  alone  with  the  woman  in  the  centre  of  the  group  of 
people.     Jesus  looks  up  at  her  and  asks  her — we  can  hear  the 
scathing  irony  of  the  words — Where  are  they?     Doth  no  man 
condemn  thee  ?     Yes,  indeed.  He  may  well  ask  where  they  are. 
They  have  gone  off,   thinking  of  their  own  sins.     Their  own 
thoughts  are  now  accusing  and  perhaps  weakly  excusing  them, 
but  chiefly  condemning  them.     And  the  woman  answers :   No 
man.  Lord.     And  Jesus  said  :  Neither  do  I  condemn  thee.     Go 
thy  way,  and  from  henceforth  sin  no  more.     That  is  a  wonderful 
scene.     The  whole  process  might  have  taken  place  precisely  as 
this  form  of  the  text  places  it  before  our  eyes.     But  thus  far  the 
witnesses  for  that  word   "read"  are  not  important  enough   to 
admit  of  our  putting  it  into  the  text  instead  of  "heard." 

In  the  Greek  Church  this  section  was  used  as  the  lesson  for 
people  who  repented  and  confessed  their  sins,  whether  men  or 
women,  and  it  is  not  hard  to  imagine  how  often  it  must  have 
been  read,  and  what  grateful  ears  it  fell  upon.  It  was  read  and 
re-read,  but  it  was  very  rarely  found  at  this  place  in  the  Gospel 


5l6  THE  TEXT 

of  John.  In  many  manuscripts  it  stands  after  the  end  of  John 
as  an  extra  piece  all  by  itself.  There  is  an  interesting  external 
proof  that  it  was  not  a  part  of  the  original  Gospel.  We  spoke 
some  time  ago  of  the  chapters  in  the  Gospels,  the  large  chapters 
with  their  headings.  These  large  chapters  call  attention  to  every 
remarkable  narrative  in  the  text,  and  it  is  a  matter  of  course  that 
if  the  story  of  the  Adulteress  had  been  in  John  it  would  have 
formed  a  chapter  and  had  its  heading.  But  it  is  very  rarely 
lound  in  the  list  of  the  chapters  of  John.  There  are  eighteen 
chapters  in  John  in  almost  all  the  manuscripts,  and  the  tenth 
chapter  is  "about  the  man  blind  from  birth."  Even  in  many  of 
the  manuscripts  in  which  the  section  has  been  inserted  into  the 
Gospel  the  list  of  the  eighteen  chapters  remains  as  usual.  Then 
in  a  number  of  copies  the  scribes  have  felt  that  that  was  not 
fitting,  have  thought  that  the  story  must  appear  also  in  the 
chapter  list,  and  they  have  put  it  in  as  chapter  tenth  "about 
the  Adulteress,"  thus  making  in  all  nineteen  chapters.  There  it 
would  have  been  from  the  first  had  it  been  part  of  the  Gospel, 
and  its  failure  to  appear  there  proves  that  it  was  not  in  the 
Gospel.  Thus  such  a  thing  as  a  list  of  chapters  can,  after  all, 
tell  us  something  of  importance  for  the  text. 

I  have  said  that  this  section  is  not  found  in  a  large  number  of 
manuscripts.  It  is  the  only  section  which  in  no  small  number  of 
manuscripts  has  been  put  into  the  text  by  force.  In  many  a  copy 
it  has  been  merely  added,  often  in  a  small  hand,  on  the  margin. 
But  in  many,  when  we  reach  that  point  in  the  Gospel,  we  see 
of  a  sudden  two  newer  leaves,  written  also  of  course  in  a  newer 
hand.  The  moment  such  leaves  appear  the  textual  critic  knows 
what  is  up.  The  manuscript  did  not  originally  contain  the  story 
of  the  Adulteress.  Thereupon  the  owner  of  the  manuscript  tore 
or  cut  out  the  leaf  upon  which  the  surrounding  verses  were 
written  and  put  in  two  new  leaves,  on  which  he  wrote  those 
surrounding  verses  which  he  had  removed,  and  in  the  midst  of 
them  the  section  about  the  Adulteress.  There  is  no  help  for  it. 
These  verses  do  not  belong  to  the  Gospel  of  John.  They  form 
no  part  of  the  New  Testament.  That  is,  however,  no  reason 
why  we  should  not  gladly  read  them.  In  the  case  of  Mark  1 6^-20 
we  have  learned  from  whom  the  verse  came — from  Aristion. 
In  the  case  of  this  section  we  do  not  know  from  whom  it  came. 
But  it  may  well  be  older,  not  yourp:er,  than  the  Gospel  of  John. 


EARLY   HISTORY   OF   TEXT— MK  16^-'^  517 

Textual  criticism  knows  that  it  is  not,  however,  a  proper  part  of 
that  Gospel. 

We  have  said  that  neither  Mark  i6^-'^o  nor  John  ySS-gn  belongs 
to  the  New  Testament.  The  problem  at  once  arises,  what 
should  be  done  with  these  verses  ?  Here  are  two  sections,  each 
about  of  a  hundred  and  sixty-six  words,  which  have  almost  from 
the  outset  been  more  or  less  closely  joined  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment. One  of  them  is  from  a  disciple  of  Jesus  named  Aristion  ; 
the  other  is,  I  take  it,  also  originally  from  a  disciple  of  Jesus, 
though  I  do  not  know  his  name.  Textual  criticism  having  now 
shown  that  neither  the  one  nor  the  other  of  the  two  is  by  rights 
a  part  of  the  New  Testament,  some  persons  might  think  that  the 
only  proper  conclusion  would  be  to  cast  them  both  altogether 
away,  not  to  allow  them  to  appear  in  the  New  Testament  in  any 
form.  Should  that  be  done,  should  they  no  longer  be  printed 
in  the  New  Testament,  should  they  be  left  to  casual  collections 
of  early  Christian  writings,  the  one,  the  Aristion  passage,  would 
probably  soon  be  forgotten.  That  would  be  of  less  consequence, 
owing  to  the  fact  that  its  contents  are  pretty  much  all  in  our 
hands  in  other  passages.  The  other  passage,  the  story  of  the 
Adulteress,  would  not  be  forgotten.  It  would,  however,  on  the 
one  hand  certainly  fail  to  be  seen  so  often,  fail  to  be  read  so 
often  as  it  is  now^  read  in  the  New  Testament ;  and  on  the  other 
hand,  it  would  in  all  likelihood  be  the  object  of  many  changes 
and  of  many  interpolations  in  the  course  of  time. 

It  seems  to  me  that  these  two  passages  have  a  thoroughly 
different  standing  from  the  first  passage  mentioned,  i  John  5'''^. 
That  passage  never  was  a  part  of  the  Greek  New  Testament,  and 
should  be  omitted  from  it  as  if  Erasmus  had  never  been  brought 
to  print  it.  It  should  be  left  out  without  word  or  sign  that  any  false 
words  ever  had  been  there.  But  these  two  passages  should  on 
the  contrary  remain  in  the  New  Testament.  Should  the  real  end  of 
Mark  some  day  be  found,  it  might  then  be  well  to  let  the  present 
verses  16^-20  go.  Yet  even  then,  as  I  think  should  be  the  method 
of  proceeding  now,  these  lines  from  Aristion  might  be  printed 
after  the  Gospel  as  the  long-used  close  of  it.  It  is  only  desirable 
that  they  should  be  distinctly  separated  from  16^.  There  should 
be  a  slight  space  between  verse  eighth  and  verse  ninth,  and  the 
passage  should  be  in  brackets  and  have  Aristion's  name  attached 
to  it.     It  is  very  convenient  that  this  passage  takes  its  place  in 


5l8  THE  TEXT 

the  course  of  nature  at  the  end  of  the  Gospel  where  it  occasions 
no  difficulty.  As  for  the  story  of  the  Adulteress,  three  courses 
are  open.  It  could  be  left  in  the  text,  but  be  separated  from  the 
rest  by  a  gap  before  and  after  it,  and  by  double  brackets.  This 
does  not  seem  to  me  to  be  advisable.  It  could  be  placed  at  the 
foot  of  the  page  on  which  John  7^^  occurs,  as  if  it  were  a  note. 
It  seems  to  me,  however,  that  the  best  way  of  all  to  dispose  of 
it  would  be  to  follow  some  of  the  manuscripts  and  to  print  it 
after  the  close  of  the  Gospel  of  John  as  a  separate  piece.  It 
could  then  be  found  even  more  readily  than  now.  These  are 
the  three  passages  about  which  textual  criticism  gives  us  clear 
and  definite  information. 


Luke  22^2-^*. 

The  three  passages  that  probably  should  be  left  out,  but 
about  which  the  verdict  of  textual  criticism  is  not  so  clear  as  in 
the  three  passages  named  above,  are  the  following.  In  Luke 
2  243.44  ^Y^Q  vision  of  the  angel  and  the  narrative  touching  bloody 
sweat  are  lacking  in  some  documents,  and  are  in  others  marked 
as  spurious.  They  should  at  least  be  placed  in  brackets  or  be 
put  on  the  margin.  There  is  in  that  passage  perhaps  an  element 
of  exaggeration  or  of  fable  that  helps  condemn  it.  In  the  next 
passage  there  is  nothing  of  that  kind,  but  only  the  plainest  every- 
day matter  of  fact. 

Matthew  i62-3. 

It  is  in  Matthew  i62-3:  "When  it  is  evening  ye  say:  Fair 
weather.  For  the  sky  is  growing  red.  And  in  the  morning: 
A  storm  to-day.  For  the  sky  is  growing  red  and  lowering. 
Ye  know  how  to  tell  the  face  of  the  sky,  but  the  signs  of  the 
times  ye  cannot."  Nevertheless,  so  little  reason  there  would 
seem  to  be  to  object  to  these  words,  the  documents  are  against 
them.  One  would  naturally  ask,  how  the  presence  of  such 
indifferent  phrases  could  be  accounted  for  if  they  were  not 
genuine,  if  they  had  not  been  there  from  the  first  moment. 
For  it  is  clear  that  we  do  not  find  such  things,  such  phrases 
thrust  in  at  other  places  in  the  New  Testament.     It  is  possible 


EARLY  HISTORY  OF  TEXT— LK  22^3.44  mt  i62-3  jqh  S^-*    519 

that  Jesus  spoke  these  words  at  some  other  time.  The  somewhat 
sarcastic  turn,  that  they  could  tell  what  the  weather  will  be,  but 
not  what  the  evident  course  of  affairs  would  be,  might  easily  have 
been  used  against  the  Pharisees.  We  could  then  suppose  that 
some  one  who  had  heard  these  words  from  Jesus'  lips,  or  who 
had  caught  them  up  from  oral  or  even  from  some  written  tradition, 
placed  them  here  as  fitting  nicely  in  where  the  Pharisees  and 
Sadducees  asked  for  a  sign.  We  might  even  go  so  far  in 
theorising  as  to  conceive  that  Jesus  actually  said  them  at  this 
time,  but  that  the  evangelist  had  not  happened  to  have  them, 
and  that  they  were  then  supplied  as  just  suggested.  They 
probably  should  be  omitted  here  as  not  a  part  of  the  original 
text.  And  we  may  freely  say,  that  although  they  may  have  been 
spoken  by  Jesus,  and  although  we  should  wish  to  preserve  every 
thought  uttered  by  Him,  there  is,  nevertheless,  nothing  in  these 
words  that  would  make  us  greatly  mourn  their  loss.  They  can 
be  bracketed  or  put  in  a  footnote.  Our  conception  of  Jesus  and 
of  His  teaching  will  not  be  altered  by  the  omission. 


John  c^^-K 

The  third  passage  reminds  us  of  the  verses  in  Luke  22^3.44^ 
for  an  angel  comes  in  again.  This  is  in  the  Gospel  accord- 
ing to  John  53-4.  The  words  which  represent  the  multitude 
that  is  seeking  healing  as  waiting  for  an  angel  to  trouble  the 
water,  and  the  narrative  of  the  descent  of  the  angel  and  of 
the  surety  that  the  first  one  who  stepped  into  the  pool  after 
the  troubling  would  be  healed,  no  matter  what  disease  he  had, 
■ — those  words  are  not  supported  by  the  best  witnesses,  and 
they  should  be  placed  in  a  footnote.  It  is  less  difficult  to 
account  for  their  presence  than  it  was  to  accoun^for  the  presence 
of  the  words  in  the  passage  last  discussed.  For  it  was  quite 
natural  for  someone  who  read  the  Gospel  at  an  early  date  to 
put  in  just  such  an  explanation.  We  have  so  little  inclination 
to-day  to  look  to  the  intervention  of  angels,  we  are  so  much 
accustomed  to  think  of  God  as  Himself  near  us  and  Himself 
caring  for  us,  that  we  should  not  regret  at  all  to  lose  the  story 
of  the  angel  here.  But  in  the  early  years  of  Christianity  the 
case  was  different.     Then,   perhaps  largely  in  connection  with 


520  THE   TEXT 

Persian  fancies  or  as  a  result  of  some  other  heathen  dreams  about 
half-divine  beings,  whom  we  might  call  little  gods,  nothing  was 
more  natural  or  more  attractive  to  the  imagination  than  such  a 
mediating  personification  of  the  power  of  God. 

With  these  three  passages  following  upon  the  three  discussed 
before  them  we  have  had  a  glimpse  of  the  problems  of  textual 
criticism  which  have  to  deal  with  a  greater  number  of  words, 
and  we  have  also  learned  that,  aside  from  these  passages,  which 
are  to  be  switched,  shunted  out  of  the  direct  lines  of  the  text 
of  the  New  Testament,  there  are  no  larger  passages  which  are 
called  in  doubt  textually. 

Romans  9^ 

As  a  contrast  to  these  more  comprehensive  or  externally  extens- 
ive problems,  I  shall  touch  next  one  of  the  questions  which  turns 
upon  a  single  point,  or  we  might  in  view  of  old  Greek  punctuation 
even  say,  upon  the  position  of  a  single  point  as  either  at  the  upper 
part  or  the  lower  part  of  the  last  letter  of  the  word  after  which  it 
stood.  The  passage  is  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Komans  9^.  In  order 
to  understand  this  passage  we  must  go  back  to  an  old  habit  of 
the  Jews.  They  had  a  great  way  of  breaking  out  anywhere  and 
everywhere  with  a  doxology.  We  can  see  the  same  thing  to-day 
if  we  take  up  a  Jewish  prayer-book.  Indeed,  we  may  find  the 
same  thing  in  more  than  one  place  in  the  New  Testament.  Nor 
is  the  history  of  the  Church  lacking  in  similar  phenomena. 
Certainly  thirty  years  ago  in  America  it  was  not  uncommon  in 
some  Church  services  to  hear  in  the  midst  of  a  prayer  or  a  sermon 
one  Christian  and  another  ejaculate  loudly  :  "  Glory  be  to  God  ! " 
—or  "Hallelujah  !  "—or  "Blessed  be  the  Lord!"— or  "The  Lord's 
name  be  praised  ! "  Paul  was  in  the  first  verses  here  speaking  of 
the  glorious  privileges  of  Israel.  He  was  about  to  discuss  Israel's 
sins,  and  he  wished  in  advance  to  put  on  record  his  high  respect 
for,  and  his  devotion  to  his  race.  The  Israelites  have  the 
adoption,  and  the  glory,  and  the  covenants,  and  the  lawgiving,  and 
the  service,  and  the  promises,  and  the  fathers,  and  from  them  is 
Christ  according  to  the  flesh.  In  the  third  verse  of  the  first 
chapter  he  had  said  that  the  Son  of  God  was  of  the  seed  of 
David  according  to  the  flesh.  And  now,  having  summed  up 
these  glories  of  Israel,  he  says  like  a  genuine  Jew  :  "  Thank  God  !  " 


EARLY  HISTORY  OF  TEXT— ROM  9^,  I  5  AND  1 6  52 1 

That  is  to  say,  just  as  in  Rom.  i-^,  so  here  he  declares  God 
blessed :  "  God  who  is  over  all  be  blessed  for  ever.  Amen." 
The  whole  problem  lies  in  the  punctuation  after  the  word  "flesh." 
In  my  opinion  there  is  no  doubt  that  a  full  stop  must  follow  that 
word.  I  have  examined  a  great  many  manuscripts  in  many 
different  libraries,  and  almost  all  of  them  have  their  largest  stop 
after  crapKa,  "flesh." 

Romans  15  and  16. 

Questions  of  textual  criticism  may  have  a  bearing  upon 
questions  that  belong  pardy  to  the  criticism  of  the  canon  in  a 
certain  way  and  partly  to  the  criticism  of  the  writings.  A  very 
striking  case  to  which  we  alluded  above  is  found  at  the  close  ,of 
the  Epistle  to  the  Romans.  In  our  editions  the  Epistle  closes 
(j525-27)  ^ith  a  doxology :  "To  him  that  is  able  to  confirm  you 
according  to  my  gospel  and  the  preaching  of  Jesus  Christ, 
according  to  the  revelation  of  a  mystery  that  had  been  kept 
silent  from  eternal  times,  but  now  has  been  revealed  and  also 
made  known  by  prophetic  writings  according  to  the  command  of 
the  eternal  God  unto  all  the  nations  unto  obedience  of  faith,  to 
the  only  wise  God,  through  Jesus  Christ,  to  whom  be  glory  unto 
the  ages  of  the  ages.  Amen."  These  majestic  words  make  a 
fitting  close  for  this  grand  Epistle.  But  do  they  belong  here  ? 
For  in  the  documents  we  find  that  they  are  sometimes  omitted. 
We  shall  see  that  they  were  omitted  largely  in  Western  docu- 
ments, but  that  the  omission  was  known  in  the  East. 

A  slight,  a  passing  testimony  against  these  verses  was  offered 
by  a  Greek,  who  probably  in  the  ninth  century  corrected  the  Greek 
text  in  the  Codex  Claromontanus,  Dp"""'.  This  Greek  added  the 
spiritus  and  accents  to  the  text,  but  left  them  out  in  the  case  of 
words  which  he  did  not  approve.  Here  he  accented  the  first 
four  words  as  it  were  by  chance,  and  then,  seeing  what  the  text 
was,  added  no  more.  That  was  a  Greek  testimony  in  the 
West,  for  this  Codex  Claromontanus  is  a  Western  manuscript. 
The  Greek  text  of  the  Codex  Augiensis,  Fp"""',  also  leaves  these 
words  out,  but  it  leaves  room  for  them  in  the  Greek  text  here  at 
the  close  of  the  sixteenth  chapter.  The  other  Greek  -  Latin 
manuscript  of  the  Epistles  of  Paul,  the  Codex  Bornerianus  at 
Dresden,  GP'"""',  omits   these  words   in   like  manner,  but  differs 


522  THE  TEXT 

nevertheless  from  the  Codex  Augiensis,  because  it  leaves  room 
for  them  not  here,  but  at  the  close  of  the  fourteenth  chapter,  after 
1423,  and  that  both  in  the  Greek  and  in  the  Latin  text.  It  is  a 
curious  circumstance,  and  shows  how  trifling  a  thing  may  throw 
light  upon  the  history  of  a  reading,  that  we  find  traces  of  this 
omission  in  Jerome's  commentary  to  the  Ephesians.  He  is 
discussing  Eph.  3^,  and  refers  to  those  who  think  that  the 
prophets  did  not  understand  what  they  spoke,  but  made  their 
utterances  in  an  unwitting  ecstasy.  He  declares  that  they  use 
as  a  proof  of  their  view  not  only  Eph.  3^,  but  also  this 
passage:  "To  him  that  is  able,"  etc.,  which  he  says  "is  found  in 
the  most  manuscripts  to  the  Romans."  When  he  says  it  is  in 
the  "  most "  manuscripts,  he  shows  that  in  some  this  passage  is 
not  found.  Thus  we  have  word  of  the  omission  of  this  doxology 
in  the  fourth  century. 

But  we  can  go  back  to  the  second  century,  for  Origen 
relates  that  Marcion  took  this  passage  out  of  Romans.  We  shall 
return  to  Origen's  further  testimony  later.  Here  a  word  is 
necessary  as  to  this  statement.  In  spite  of  the  fact  that  Origen 
lived  not  far  from  Marcion's  day,  and  in  spite  of  the  fact  that 
Marcion  did  use  a  sharp  dissecting  knife  upon  the  books  of 
the  New  Testament,  w^e  do  not  feel  perfectly  sure  that  the 
excision  of  the  words,  or,  to  speak  more  cautiously,  that  the 
absence  of  these  words,  was  due  to  Marcion.  The  fact  remains, 
however,  that  they  were  wanting  in  Marcion's  manuscripts,  and 
therefore  in  the  manuscripts  of  his  followers  in  the  second 
century,  scarcely  a  hundred  years  after  Paul  dictated  the  Epistle 
to  Tertius,  to  Tertius  if  the  sixteenth  chapter  belongs  here. 

There  certainly  is,  nevertheless,  a  fair  amount  of  documentary 
evidence  for  the  existence  of  these  words  as  a  part  of  this  Epistle. 
But  strangely  enough  this  evidence  is  of  a  double  nature.  The 
French  would  say  that  it  was  cross-eyed.  It  looks  towards  two 
places  at  once. 

We  saw  a  moment  ago  that  the  Codex  Augiensis  left  a 
blank  space  for  these  words  after  Rom.  1423.  Now  there  is  an 
uncial  manuscript  of  the  ninth  century  in  the  Angelica  Library 
at  Rome  which  has  these  words  at  that  point,  after  142^  and 
not  after  162^.  They  are  found  at  that  same  place  in  a  couple 
of  hundred  of  the  younger  manuscripts  in  small  writing.  The 
later  Syrian  translation  also  has  them  there.     The  Arabic  trans- 


EARLY   HISTORY   OF   TEXT — ROMANS    1 5    AND    1 6      523 

lation  that  was  printed  in  the  Paris  polyglot  has  them  there. 
They  seem  to  have  been  in  the  same  place  in  the  Gothic  trans- 
lation. And  Origen,  whom  we  named  above,  says  that  in  some 
of  his  manuscripts  these  words  stood  after  14^3.  Origen's  manu- 
scripts stretched,  we  may  be  sure,  far  back  into  the  second 
century.  Chrysostom,  the  golden-mouthed  orator,  had  them 
there  in  his  text,  and  so  had  Cyril  of  Alexandria  of  the  early  fifth 
century,  and  Theodoret  an  opponent  of  Cyril  and  a  friend  of 
Nestorius,  and  John  Damascenus  who  died  after  the  middle  of 
the  eighth  century,  and  Theophylact  the  Bulgarian  bishop,  and 
Oecumenius.  All  these  have  this  passage  not  at  the  end  of  the 
Epistle,  but  at  the  end  of  the  fourteenth  chapter. 

Then  there  are  a  few  documents  that  have  the  words  at  both 
places,  both  at  the  close  of  the  sixteenth  and  at  the  close  of  the 
fourteenth  chapter.  Even  the  great  Codex  Alexandrinus  of  the 
fifth  century  has  them  thus  twice,  and  so  has  a  ninth  century 
large  letter  manuscript  at  St.  Petersburg,  P,  and  so  have  some 
younger  manuscripts  and  some  Armenian  witnesses. 

And,  finally,  they  stand  at  the  end  of  the  Epistle,  as  in  our 
editions,  in  the  Codex  Sinaiticus  and  the  Codex  Vaticanus  both 
of  the  fourth  century,  in  the  Codex  Ephraim  of  the  fifth  century, 
and  in  the  first  hand  of  the  Codex  Claromontanus  of  the  sixth 
century.  Besides  that  there  are  some  small-letter  manuscripts 
that  have  them  there ;  and  Origen  says  that  they  were  there  in 
some  manuscripts  that  were  before  him,  which  will  have  been 
doubtless  of  the  second  century.  Three  Old-Latin  manuscripts 
have  them  there,  and  so  does  the  Vulgate.  And  the  Syrian 
translation  joins  with  the  Boheiric  and  the  Ethiopic  in  placing 
them  there.     Origen  and  Ambrosiaster  are  of  the  same  mind. 

I  feel  sure  that  many  a  reader  will  by  this  time  begin  to 
think  that  this  passage  is  a  piece  of  textual  fireworks.  The 
reason  I  have  here  called  attention  to  it  is  because  it  seems  to 
me  to  be  uncommonly  full  of  instruction.  It  involves  all  manner 
of  questions,  and  insinuates  itself  into  several  departments  of 
New  Testament  study.  We  may  find  a  clue  to  the  difficulties 
and  intricacies  of  the  whole  matter  in  the  possibilities  of  the 
earliest  history  of  this  Epistle,  we  might  say,  both  in  Paul's 
hands  and  in  the  hands  of  the  church  at  Rome.  The  textual 
doubtfulness  is  probably  a  token  of  certain  things  that  have  left 
no  other  traces  behind  them. 


524  THE  TEXT 

To  try  to  put  the  matter  plainly,  we  must,  first,  insist  upon  the 
purely  theoretical  character  of  the  explanation  that  we  have  in 
mind,  and  then,  second,  speak  definitely  as  if  we  knew  all  about  it. 
If  we  look  at  the  sixteenth  chapter  and  see  what  a  number  of 
persons  Paul  salutes  in  it  intimately,  it  will  give  us  food  for 
thought.  Prisca  or  Priscilla  and  Aquila  are  old  friends  and  fellow- 
workers  of  Paul.  They  had  to  leave  Rome.  They  were  with  Paul 
at  Corinth.  They  formed  a  theological  training  school  then  for 
Apollos  at  Ephesus,  and  sent  him  to  Corinth  to  follow  up  Paul's 
work.  Now  they  might  by  this  time  be  again  in  Rome,  but  we 
knew  of  them  last  at  Ephesus.  Then  comes  Epainetus,  "  the  first- 
fruits  of  Asia  unto  Christ."  He  might  have  been  at  Rome,  but 
Asia  is  nearer  Ephesus.  Paul  knows  about  Mariam's  work  for  the 
Christians  to  whom  he  is  writing.  Andronicus  and  Junias  were 
relatives  and  fellow- prisoners  of  Paul's,  and  were  notable  among 
the  apostles,  and  had  been  Christians  before  Paul  was.  And  the 
list  runs  on  and  on,  and  includes  households  or  churches  in 
special  houses,  as  in  Prisca's  and  Aquila's  at  the  beginning,  and 
even  includes  Rufus'  mother,  who  had  filled  a  mother's  place 
towards  the  old  bachelor  Paul.  Look  at  the  list  carefully. 
Write  down  the  number  of  people  mentioned,  counting  as  few  as 
may  be  admissible  for  the  anonymous  groups.  We  shall  probably 
reach  at  least  fifty  people  whom  Paul  knows  intimately.  And 
then  reflect  that  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  is  written  to  a  church 
that  Paul  has  not  yet  visited.  It  is  hard  to  account  for  the  fact 
that  Paul  should  know  so  many  people  well  in  a  still  unvisited 
church,  and  almost  as  hard  to  understand  how  he  could  speak 
as  if -he  did  not  know  the  church  if  he  knew  fifty  of  the  certainly 
then  not  very  large  group  of  Christians  at  Rome.  If  these 
salutations  should  have  been  written  to  the  church  at  Ephesus 
where  Paul  had  spent  a  couple  of  years,  they  would  be  in  every 
way  at  once  to  be  accounted  for.  No  single  name  would  appear 
to  be  singular. 

If,  however,  this  letter,  that  is  to  say,  this  sixteenth  chapter 
in  the  main,  had  been  written  to  Ephesus,  and  if  that  fact 
were  to  be  reflected  in  the  documents  which  contain  the  text, 
the  doxology  would  not  be  moved  from  the  end  of  the  sixteenth 
chapter  to  the  end  of  the  fourteenth,  but  to  the  end  of  the 
fifteenth  chapter.  But  no  single  document  puts  the  doxology 
there. 


EARLY   HISTORY   OF   TEXT— ROMANS    1 5    AND    l6      525 

Here  a  word  comes  in  that  Origen  speaks.  He  really  said 
a  great  deal  about  this  passage  in  a  very  few  words.  He  not 
only  says  that  Marcion  omitted  the  doxology,  but  he  also  says 
that  Marcion  cut  out  the  whole  of  the  last  two  chapters.  I  said  a 
while  ago  that  heretics  were  sometimes  accused  of  corrupting  or 
curtailing  the  text,  when  it  is  apparent  to  us  that  they  are  merely 
using  the  manuscripts  which  the  ordinary  course  of  their  life  had 
placed  in  their  hands.  And  those  manuscripts  may  have  been 
better  than  the  manuscripts  of  the  men  who  attacked  them. 
Marcion,  who  came  from  the  East,  from  Pontus,  to  Rome  in  the 
year  138  or  139,  perhaps,  only  about  eighty-five  years  after 
Romans  was  written,  may  have  had  in  Rome,  and  copied,  a  roll 
of  Romans  which  did  actually  stop  at  1422.  The  doxology  might 
have  been  there  or  not.  If  it  were  there,  Marcion  may  have  cut 
it  off  because  he  did  not  like  the  favourable  allusion  to  the 
prophetic  writings. 

It  would  be  possible  that  Paul's  original  letter  to  the  Romans 
had  closed  at  14^^  with  the  doxology,  and  without  a  long  series 
of  intimate  greetings  to  people  whom  he  did  not  know.  The 
fifteenth  chapter  might  then  have  been  a  letter  written  by 
Paul  at  a  later  date,  and  wTitten  to  the  Romans.  The  six- 
teenth chapter  could  well  have  been  a  letter  of  recommenda- 
tion written  for  Phoebe  to  the  church  at  Ephesus.  Phoebe  might 
even  have  received  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  from  Paul  at 
Cenchrea,  and  have  taken  a  ship  which  was  going  to  sail  from 
Cenchrea  to  Ephesus  and  then  westward  to  Rome.  It  may  have 
been  the  ship  of  a  Christian  owner  who  gave  her  a  free  passage. 
Such  a  roundabout  voyage  would  not  have  been  strange  at  that 
day,  and  might  occur  even  to-day.  All  ships  do  not  touch  at  all 
ports.  Pursuing  the  thought,  Phoebe  having  delivered  the  letter 
at  Ephesus,  will  then  have  begged  it  off  or  have  copied  it  for 
herself  as  a  recommendation  for  Rome,  and  all  the  good  people 
so  kindly  named  by  Paul  will  have  been  glad  to  let  their  praises 
be  carried  by  Phoebe  to  the  capital  city.  Then  at  some  later 
day,  the  short  letter  composing  the  fifteenth  chapter  and  Phoebe's 
Ephesian  letter  were  (see  p.  320)  by  accident,  or  even  on  purpose 
as  Pauline,  copied  at  the  end  of  a  new  roll  on  which  Romans  was 
written,  and  the  doxology  was  moved  from  after  14^3  to  after  16^^. 

Should,  however,  anyone  choose  to  reject  as  pure  fancy  the 
theory  of  the  main  part  of  the  sixteenth  chapter  as  sent  first  to 


526  THE  TEXT 

Ephesus  and  then  reaching  Rome,  I  have  only  to  say  that  I 
should  have  no  objections  to  offer  to  another  thought.  If, 
namely,  the  greetings  in  the  sixteenth  chapter,  naturally  as  many 
of  them  seem  to  appertain  to  Ephesus,  should  be  conceived  of  as 
written  in  a  brief  note  by  Paul  at  some  later  day,  after  he  had 
spent  the  first  two  years  at  Rome  and  had  become,  though  a 
prisoner,  well  acquainted  with  the  Christians  there, — as  written 
then  to  the  Romans,  they  would  offer  no  further  difficulty.  The 
addition  of  the  two  notes  to  the  Epistle  and  the  transfer  of  the 
doxology  would  remain  the  same. 


Oneness  of  Modern  Text. 

Before  taking  up  the  consideration  of  these  various  passages, 
I  referred  (p.  508)  to  the  negative  comfort  that  may  be  drawn 
from  the  thought  that  we  need  not  look  for  a  future  cutting  out 
of  larger  portions  of  text.  We  may  close  our  view  of  the  criticism 
of  the  text  by  the  positive  comfort  to  be  found  in  the  oneness  of 
modern  textual  criticism,  and  in  the  proportionally  large  amount 
of  text  that  seems  to  be  well  settled. 

It  has  sometimes  been  thought  that  textual  critics  endangered 
and  damaged  the  text,  and  it  has  been  imagined  that  their 
collections  of  various  readings  from  the  manuscripts  were  so 
many  signs  of  the  disintegration  of  the  text  at  their  hands.  But 
those  who  have  such  fears  forget  that  the  critics  do  not  invent 
the  various  readings.  They  only  take  the  trouble  to  compare 
texts,  and  to  say  what  the  testimony  to  the  various  forms  of  the 
text  is.  And  it  is  further  alleged  that  every  text  determined  upon 
is  different  from  the  preceding  text,  and  that  there  is  no  progress 
in  textual  criticism,  but  that  all  is  growing  worse.  The  aim  of  all 
these  complaints  is  to  say  that  we  should  throw  all  textual 
criticism  and  all  textual  critics  overboard,  and  live  along  in 
blissful  ignorance  of  right  or  wrong  readings,  or  of  goodness  and 
badness  in  texts,  not  taking  as  much  interest  in  the  texts  of  our 
New  Testament  as  the  Shakespeare  scholars  take  in  the  text  of 
Shakespeare,  the  Dante  scholars  in  that  of  Dante,  or  the  classical 
philologians  in  that  of  Homer. 

So  far  from  its  being  the  case  that  the  great  textual  critics 


EARLY   HISTORY  OF  TEXT  527 

have  made  no  progress  in  determining  the  text,  we  can  see  by 
a  single  example  in  what  a  high  degree  they  have  succeeded 
in  fixing  it.  If  we  turn  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  we 
find  in  a  single  chapter,  in  the  twelfth,  besides  a  number  of 
other  places  in  which  the  so-called  Received  Text  was  wrong, 
five  places  in  which  the  readings  which  it  contained  either  have 
no  known  documentary  support  or  such  as  is  in  no  wise  to  be 
compared  to  the  support  given  by  the  better  witnesses  to  the 
readings  of  the  great  critics.     That  by  the  bye. 

As  to  the  agreement  of  the  three  editions  of  Tregelles,  West- 
cott  and  Hort,  and  Tischendorf,  we  may  take  into  account  the 
whole  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  Tregelles  did  not  have  at 
his  command  all  that  the  other  editions  had,  and  nevertheless  he 
only  stands  alone  in  ten  places,  two  of  which  are  omissions,  in 
that  he  once  leaves  out  "the"  and  once  leaves  out  "and," — 
three  are  additions,  in  that  he  adds  the  word  "the"  twice  in 
one  verse,  and  in  another  verse  the  word  "work,"- and  at  the  end 
of  the  Epistle  "  Amen," — and  three  are  grammatical  differences. 
Westcott  and  Hort  are  found  alone  seven  times.  They  make 
two  additions,  once  of  "as  a  garment,"  and  once  of  "and." 
They  put  the  word  "roll  up"  instead  of  the  word  "change," 
which  in  the  Greek  only  alters  three  letters.  They  move  a 
comma  from  after  the  word  "assembly"  to  before  that  word. 
And  they  make  three  grammatical  changes.  And,  finally,  Tisch- 
endorf, of  whom  people  often  speak  as  if  he  treated  the  text  in- 
considerately, arbitrarily,  and  rashly,  is  found  to  stand  alone  only 
four  times.  He  has  "  injustice  "  instead  of  "  lawlessness,"  a  differ- 
ence of  three  letters  in  Greek ;  he  leaves  out  an  article ;  he  has 
"  to  the  "  instead  of  "  the  "  ;  and  he  has  a  difTerent  tense  of  the 
same  verb  in  a  quotation  from  the  Old  Testament. 

From  that  we  can  see  that  the  tendency  of  these  scholars 
was  not  altogether  so  centrifugal  and  destructive  as  has  at  times 
been  supposed.  Those  who  decry  textual  criticism  as  dangerous 
and  destructive,  are  usually  not  aware  of  the  comparatively 
limited  extent  of  the  text  of  the  New  Testament,  which  is 
subject  to  doubt.  And  the  work  of  the  editors  whom  we  have 
just  mentioned  has  gone  far  towards  circumscribing  still  more 
narrowly  the  field.  They  have  in  so  many  cases  cleared  up 
difificulties,  solved  doubts,  and  settled  readings  apparently  for 
good,  that  much  less  is  left  as  debatable  ground.     The  second 


528  THE  TEXT 

page  of  Hort's  Introduction  to  the  edition  of  Westcott  and 
Hort  should  be  learned  by  heart  by  everyone  who  fears  that 
the  New  Testament  will  vanish  into  thin  air  under  the  chemical 
processes  of  textual  criticism.  Hort  presents  first  of  all  as  the 
result  of  a  rough  computation  the  proportion  of  words  that 
are  generally  accepted  as  well  established  and  beyond  doubt, 
as  not  less  than  seven-eighths  of  the  whole  New  Testament. 
Then,  however,  he  takes  up  the  remaining  eighth,  the  due  field 
of  the  textual  critic,  and  reminds  us  that  it  is  very  largely  made 
up  of  trifling  differences  ;  for  example,  among  other  things,  of  the 
mere  order  of  the  words,  and  of  differences  of  spelling.  In 
consequence,  he  reckons  that  the  words  still  subject  to  doubt  do 
not  make  up  more  than  about  one-sixtieth  of  the  New  Testament. 
This  might  seem  to  be  enough  to  calm  the  troubled  minds  of 
those  who  tremble  before  or  are  indignantly  hostile  to  the  criticism 
of  the  text.     Yet  that  is  not  enough. 

The  examination  of  the  variations  still  left  shows  that  a 
large  majority  of  them  are  of  comparatively  slight  importance. 
Hort's  final  judgment  is  that  the  field  covered  by  substantial 
variations  "  can  hardly  form  more  than  a  thousandth  part  of  the 
entire  text."  In  order  to  gain  an  idea  of  what  that  means,  we 
can  be  very  plain.  A  Greek  New  Testament  lying  at  my  side 
contains  five  hundred  and  sixty  pages  not  as  large  as  my  hand, 
and  there  are  a  couple  of  lines  of  various  readings  on  most  of 
the  pages.  A  thousandth  part  of  that  would  then  after  all  be  in 
the  neighbourhood  of  a  half  a  page  or  fifteen  or  sixteen  of  these 
small  lines.  Really  that  is  not  very  much.  And  the  great  point 
for  a  Christian  is  that  he  must  wish  to  have  his  one  great  book 
brought  into  the  very  best  condition  possible.  It  would  be  strange 
if  a  Christian  should  take  pains  to  have  a  well-built  church,  and 
wish  to  have  a  well-prepared  pastor,  and  be  anxious  that  a  good 
choir  be  at  command,  but  should  say :  "  It  is  no  matter  about 
the  New  Testament.  The  edition  that  Estienne  printed  three 
centuries  and  a  half  ago,  when  but  little  was  known  about  the  text, 
is  quite  good  enough  for  me."  It  is  singular  to  see  a  man  anxious 
to  have  the  latest  and  best  thing  in  electric  lights,  but  totally 
indifferent  as  to  having  the  best  text  in  his  New  Testament. 


529 


INDEX 


Abbot,  Ezra,  339,  462, 

Abbott,  Thomas  Kingsmill,  357. 

Abbreviations     in     Sinailicus,     334, 

335- 
Abraham's  318  servants,  75. 
Acacius  of  Csesarea,  433. 
Acts,  183,  184. 
Ada  Codex  in  Trier,  416. 
Addai,  teaching  of,  128. 
Adulteress,  story  of,  379,  513-518. 
yEschines,  16. 

Affrey,  Denis  Auguste,  456. 
Aganon,  358. 
Agapius  of  Ccesarea,  256. 
Akhmimic  translation,  405 
Albert,  king  of  Saxony,  161. 
Alcala,  439. 
AlcLiin,  412. 

Alexander,  a  martyr,  144. 
Alexander  of  Alexandria,  433. 

Lycopolis,  432. 
Alexandrian  manuscript,  340-343. 
Alexandrians,  Epistle  to,  132. 
Alexandrinus,  Codex,  340-343. 
Alexius  Aristenus,  239. 
Alford,  Henry,  461. 
Alfred,  King,  417. 
Allix,  Pierre,  350. 
Alogians,  151. 
Alypos,  392. 
Amastrians,  134. 
Ambrosiaster,  434. 
Ambrosius,  434. 
Amiata  manuscript,  413. 
Amnionic  translation,  405. 
Ammonius,  429,  432. 
Amphilochius   of   Iconium,  275-277, 

433- 
Anastasius  of  Sinai,  loi. 

34 


Ancient  handwriting,  314. 
Andrew,  the  apostle,  131. 
Andrew     of     Ccesarea,      291,     383, 

473. 
Anicetus,  1 15. 

Anthony,  St.,  403,  404,  433. 
Antinous,  114. 
Antitactce,  430. 
Antoninus  Verus,  142. 
Antonio  from  Lebrija,  440. 
Antwerp  polyglot,  442. 
Apelles,  180,  430. 
Aphraates,  James,  429,  432. 
Apolinarius,  115,  434. 
Apollonius,  432. 
Apostle,  a  book  of  lessons,  390. 
Apostolic  age,  43. 
Apostolical  Constitutions,  432. 
Appolonados  Theosteriktos,  305. 
Aprigius,  429. 
Archelaeus,  431. 
Arethas  of  Csesarea,  291,  383. 
Aristides,  431. 

Aristion,  the  presbyter,  511,  512. 
Arias,  433. 

Armenian  translation,  406,  407. 
Arsinous,  133. 
Asterius,  433. 
Athanasius   of  Alexandria,    19,    267- 

271,  433,  434- 
Athenagoras  of  Athens,  ill,  137,  168, 

200,  209,  431. 
Attalos,  a  martyr,  143,  144. 
Atticus,  120,  121. 
Attius,  121. 
Avesta,  23. 

Augustine,  282,  284-286,  435. 
Autolycus,  138-142. 
Aymont,  Jean,  thief,  365,  414. 


530 


INDEX 


Bacchylides,  134. 
Bacon,. Roger;  412. 
Bandini,  Angelo  Maria,  378. 
Barnabas,  letter  of,  77,  204,  209,  239, 

240,  430. 
Barrett,  John,  357. 
Bashmuric  translation,  405. 
Basil  the  Great  of  Csesarea  in  Cappa- 

docia,  274,  275,  434. 
Basilides,  69,  70,  116,  133,  171,  187, 

203,  207,  209,  430. 
Batififol,  Pierre,  362,  364. 
Bede,  the  venerable,  251,  363. 
Bellarmin,  412,  413. 
Bengel,  Johannes  Albrecht,  447. 
Bentley,  Richard,  353,  446. 
Berengar,  414. 
Bessarion,  Cardinal,  345. 
Beze,  Theodore  de,  350,  351,  442. 
Birch,  Andreas,  451. 
Blandina,  a  martyr,  143. 
Boheiric  translation,  404,  405,  430. 
Boniface  of  Rome,  278. 


Book  of  the  Dead,  21. 
Book  of  Armagh,  416. 

Chad,  415. 

Deer,  414. 

Dimma,  417. 

Durrow,  417. 

Kells,  417. 

Moling,  \ 

Mulling,)  "^^7. 

Bookmaking,  32. 

Books  outside  of  New  Testament,  40 

41. 
"  born  again,"  93,  94. 
Bovvyer,  William,  449,  450. 
Brahmans,  21. 
Brandscheid,  510. 
British   and   Foreign   Bible    Society, 

361,  464. 
Buddhists,  21. 
Burgon,  John  William,  339,  378,  411, 

462. 
Burkard,  St.,  of  Wurzburg,  416. 
Buttmann,  Philipp,  453. 


Ctesar  on  journey,  29. 

Ctesarea  and  manuscripts,  35. 

Caesarius,  434. 

Callistus,  432. 

Canon  in  Egypt,  21. 

Canon,  history  of,  7,  8. 

Canon,  Jewish,  21. 

Canon,  the  word,  15. 

Carpocrates,  163,  430. 

Carpocratians,  1 16. 

Carthage,  Synod  of,  in  397,  27S. 

Cassiodorius,  221,  281. 

Cassius  of  Tyre,  158. 

Cataphrygians,  133. 

Catholic  Epistles,  184-186. 

Catholic    Epistles    of    Dionysius    of 

Corinth,  134. 
Celsus,  III,  145,  146. 
Ceolfrid,  abbot  of  Yarrow,  413. 
Cerinthus,  68,  163,  211,  229,  250. 
Chalkopratia,  386. 
Chapters,  469. 
Charlemagne,  412. 
Charlemagne's  Bible,  415. 
Charles  the  Bald,  414. 
Charles  I.,  341. 


Cherubim  and  Gospels,  149. 
Christians  and  scribes,  34. 
Christina,  Queen,  418. 
Chrysophora,  136. 

Chrysostom,  279,  280,  390,  428,  433. 
Church  Writers,  419-436. 
Claromontanus,  Codex,  282,  350. 
Clarus  of  Ptolemaeis,  158. 
Classes  of  text,  480. 

their  origin,  481,  502, 

503- 
in  profane  books,  481. 
Clement  of  Alexandria,    17,   21,   79, 
165,  169,   172,   187,   199,  219-222, 
238,  250,  430. 
Clement  of  Rome,  16,  42,  62-67,  116, 
135,  186,  192,   195,  203,  209,  210, 
236-239. 
Clement  viii.,  Pope,  413. 
Cleobios,  116. 
Clermont,  351. 
Clopas,  120,  159. 
Cnossians,  134,  135. 
Codex  Alexandrinus,  340-343. 
Amiatinus,  413. 
Argenteus,  418. 


INDEX 


531 


Codex  Augiensis,  366,  367. 
Bezae,  350-353. 
Bornerianus,  366,  367. 
Claromontanus,  350. 
Colbertinus,  41 1. 

A,  357-359- 

Emmerami,  414. 

Ephrsemi,  348-350. 

Fuldensis,  414. 

Montfortianus,  374,  509,  510. 

[Ravianus],  376. 

Sinaiticus,  329-340,  458,  459. 

Vaticanus,  343-348. 

Vercellensis,  410,  434. 

Witekind,  416. 
Colossians,  207,  208. 
Columban,  410. 
Commodus,  116. 

Complutensian  polyglot,  439,  440. 
Constantine,   apostle   to    the   Slaves, 

418. 
Constantine's  edicts,  18. 
Constantine's  fifty  manuscripts,  263, 

326-328. 
Conybeare,      Frederick     Cornwallis, 

511. 
Coptic  translation,  156,  157,  403-405. 


Copying  books,  306,  307. 
Corbey  Bible,  416. 
Corinthians,  First,  49,  1 95-201. 

Second,  201. 

Third,  254. 
Cornelius,  St.,  of  Compiegne,  415. 
Cornelius  of  Rome,  17,  432. 
Coronation  Book,  415. 
Corrections  for  Latin,  412. 
Correctoria,  412. 
Corrupting  texts,  136, 
Council  of  Antioch  in  341,  18. 

Nice  in  325,  18. 
Covenant,  New,  467. 
Cowper,  B.  H.,  343. 
Cozza-Luzi,  Giuseppe,  347. 
Crescens,  124. 
Criticisms,  three,  1-3. 
Cronin,  H.  S.,  355. 
Cureton,  William,  356,  398. 
Cursive  writing,  330. 
Cuthbert  Gospels,  415. 
Cyprian,  Thascius  Csecilius,  232,  429, 

432,  435- 
Cyril,  apostle  to  the  Slaves,  418. 
Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  264,  433. 
Cyril  Lucar,  341. 


Daniasus,  Pope,  41 1. 

Delitzsch,  Franz,  383,  464. 

Demetrius  Ducas,  440. 

Demiurge,  81. 

Diatessaron,  124-128,  425,  426. 

Didymus  of  Alexandria,  277,  433. 

Diocletian,  18. 

Diodorus  of  Tarsus,  433. 

Diognetus,  letter  to,  73,  S6,  87,  184, 

189,     193,     196,    201,    204,    205, 

431. 


Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  227-232,432. 

Corinth,  115,  133-137. 

Rome,  233. 
Distances  from  Rome,  27. 
Docetoe,  431. 

Dominicans  correcting  text,  412. 
Domitian,  119. 
Domhnach  Airgid,  416. 
Door  of  Jesus,  113. 
Dosilheus,  1 16. 
Diuthmar,  468. 


Easter,  159,  388. 
Ebionites,  69. 
Echternach  Gospels,  416. 
Editions,  Printed,  437-466. 
Egyptians,  Gospel  to  the,  252. 
Ehrhard,  Albert,  378. 
Eight,  the,  154. 
Elearchic  translation,  405. 
Eleutherus  of  Rome,  115,  116,  148. 
Elpistos,  134. 


Elzevir  editions,  443,  444. 
^Encratitae,  431, 
Enoch,  book  of,  223. 
Ephesians,  203-205. 
Ephesus,  309. 
Ephraemi,  Codex,  348-350. 
Ephraim  the  Syrian,  128,  397,  432. 
Epiphanius,   151,  277,  and  often  be- 
sides, 434. 
Epiphanius  Magister  Paschalis,  392. 


532 


INDEX 


Epistles,  55,  56. 

Epistles,  Catholic,  184-186. 

Erasmus,  2S8,  440. 

Erasmus  and  I  John  5''-  ^  374,  382. 

Estienne,  Robert,  441,  474. 

Henri,  441,  474. 

Henri  ii.,  441. 
Ethelwald  of  Lindisfarne,  415. 
Ethiopia  Church,  290. 
Ethiopic  Translation,  405,  406,  433. 
Eunomius  of  Cyzicus,  434. 
Euphemius,  468. 
Euripides,  16. 


Eusebius    of    Ccesarea,    everywhere, 

especially  35,  257-264,  433. 
Eusebius,  Age  of,  256-272. 
Eusebius'  harmony  of  Gospels,  470. 
Eusebius  of  Emesa,  280,  433. 
Eustathius  of  Antioch,  433. 
Eustathius,  a  scribe,  376. 
Euthalius,  472. 
Eutychius,  St.,  354. 
Evagrius,  433. 
Evans,  Arthur  John,  134. 
Exports  from  Palestme,  31, 
Externals  of  Text,  467.  ' 


Fabian  of  Antioch,  17. 
Fabiani,  Henrico,  347. 
Faustinus,  278,  434,  435,  436. 
Faustus  the  Manichoean,  435. 
Fayyumic  translation,  405. 
Felix,  48. 
Fell,  John,  445. 
Ferrar  group,  371,  372. 
Ferrar,  W.  H.,  372. 


Firmilian,  17,  232,  432. 
Flora,  80,  165. 
Florinus,  146-148. 
Fortunatianus,  434. 
Fox,  Sir  Stephen,  160. 
Franciscans  correcting  text,  412. 
Frauenstadt,  41. 
Froben,  440. 


Gaius,  432. 

Galatians,  201-203. 

Gallia  Placidia,  436. 

Gardie,  Magnus  Gabriele  de  la,  418. 

Gardthausen,  Viktor,  339. 

Gaudentius,  434. 

Gebhardt,  Oskar  von,  362,  457. 

Genealogy  confused,  375. 

Gibson,     Mrs.     Margaret     Dunlop, 

.398. 
Gigas  Holmensis,  412. 
"God  to  Man,"  133,  136,  137,  213- 

216,  264. 
Godeschalk,  358. 
Gorthseus,  116. 
Gortynians,  134. 

Gospel,  a  book  of  lessons,  384-390. 
Gospels,  56. 

Gospels,  Four,  as  four  winds,  149. 
Gospels  of  Valentinians,  80. 


Gospels  of  Adalbald,  416. 

Echternach,  416. 

St.  Medard,  416. 

the  Oath,  415. 
Gothic    translation,    407,    417,    418, 

436. 
Gottschalk,  367. 
Great  Declaration,  6'J. 
Green,  Thomas  Sheldon,  462. 
Gregory  of  Nazianzus,  273,  274,  434. 

Nyssa,  275,  434. 
Gregory  Thaumaturgus,  432. 
Grenfell  and  Hunt,  512. 
Griesbach,  Johann  Jakob,  448. 
Guizot,    Fran9ois   Pierre   Guillaume, 

456. 
Guy,  Edward  A.,  379. 
Guzman,  440. 

Gwilliam,  George  Henry,  401. 
Gwynn,  John,  402,  403. 


INDEX 


533 


H 


Hadrian,  II4. 
Hall,  Isaac  H.,  402. 
Handwriting,  large,  314. 

running,  314. 
Hansel],  E.  H.,  343/ 
Hariey,  Count,  365. 
Harmony  of  Gospels,  470. 
Harnack,  Adolf,  362. 
Harris,  J.  Rendel,  363. 
Harwood,  Edward,  449,  450. 
Haselofif,  Arthur,  362. 
Hearne,  Thomas,  363. 
Hebrew  vowel  points  inspired,  290. 
Hebrews,  65,  66,  210,  211,  223,  226. 
Hebrews,  text  of,  527. 
Hebrews,  Gospel  of,  117,  245-251, 
Hegesippus,   16,   1 12-123,   130,   174, 

183,  184,  430. 
Heracleon,  166,  172,   179,   180,   194, 

197,  209,  431. 
Hermas,  81-85,   133,   180,    184,  186, 

187,  198,  211,  212,  223,  240-245. 


Hermes  Trismegistos,  21. 

Hermetical  books,  21. 

Hermias,  431. 

Hermogenes,  138. 

Hermonymos,     George,      373,     377, 

382. 
Herod.  142. 
Hierapolis,  97. 
Highgate  school,  379. 
Hilarion,  a  monk,  392. 
Hilary  of  Poitiers,  432,  435. 
Hilgenfeld,  Adolf,  339. 
Hincmar,  416. 

Hippolytus,  67  and  often,  432. 
History,  Early,  of  Text,  479. 
Homoioteleuton,  335. 
Horner,  George,  405. 
Hort,    Fenton  John    Anthony,    462, 

463,  483,  489,  493,  505,  506,  507, 

527,  528. 
Hug,  Leonhard,  346. 
Hugo  of  St.  Care,  473,  474. 


I 


Ignatius   of  Antioch,    71,    178,   208, 

430- 
Imports  into  Palestine,  31. 
Infancy,  gospel  of,  252. 
Intercommunication,  26. 
Interesting  Passages,  508-526. 
Irenseus,    125,    146-154,    161,    166, 


167,  189,  194,  205,  212, 
426,  431. 
Age  of,  111-217. 
Irwin,  Thomas,  414. 
Isaiah  of  Egypt,  433. 
Isidore  of  Sevilla,  Hispalensis,  355. 
Ivocatus,  119. 


J 


Jacob  of  Nisibis,  432. 

James  the  brother  of  Jesus,  112-114. 

James,  the  Epistle  of,  186,  187. 

Jerome,  251,  282-284,  411,  433. 

Jesus  Christ  is  Archives,  72. 

Jesus,  His  relatives,  119. 

Joasaph,  379. 

John:     two    Johns?     230,     231;     a. 

presbyter  John,   72. 
John's  Gospel,  131,  174-183  ;  written 

by  Prochorus  ?  312,  313. 
John,  First,  189. 

John,  Second  and  Third,  131,  190. 
John  Chvysostom,  279,  280. 


John  of  Placenta,  438. 

John  II.  Porphyrogenitus,  377* 

John  Serbopulos,  373,  374. 

Jude,  119,  122,  191. 

Julius  Africanus,  429,  431. 

Julius  Hilarianus,  279. 

Julius  of  Rome,  434. 

Junilius,  281. 

Justin  the  Gnostic,  211. 

Justin  Martyr,  87-97,  124,  167,  170, 
173,  174,  178,  181,  182,  198,  199, 
202,  207,  20S,  210,  211,  212,  215, 
248,  249,  430. 

Juvencus,  435. 


534 


INDEX 


Kaisarie,  354. 

Karapet,  archimandrite,  42S. 
Kelley,  William,  462. 
Kenyon,  Frederic  G.,  361. 
Kinds  of  Text,  480. 


K 


Koenigs,  Fraulein  Elise,  465. 
Koran,  22. 
Kiinstle,  Karl,  509. 
Kiister,  Ludolf,  446. 


Lacedaemonians,  134. 

Lachmann,  Carl,  349,  452-455,  456. 

Lactantius,  436. 

Langfranc  of  Canterbury,  412. 

Langton,  Stephen,  473. 

Laodicea,  Synod  of,  265-267. 

Laodiceans,  Epistle  to,  132,  254. 

Latin,  Old,  156,  157. 

Latin  Translation,  407-417. 

Laud,  Archbishop,  363. 

Law,  Prophets,  Writings,  25. 

Leaf- Books,  322. 

Leontius  of  Csesarea,  263. 

Lesoeuf,  375. 

Lesson  Books,  384-393. 

I^ewis,  Mrs.  Agnes  Smith,  398. 


Libri,  book  thief,  414. 

Life  more  than  word,  44. 

Lindisfarne  Gospels,  415. 

Linus  of  Rome,  257. 

Liuthard,  414. 

London  polyglot,  443. 

Lord's  Day,  303. 

Lord's  Prayer,  75. 

Lucian  the  martyr,  499. 

Lucian,  an  overseer,  355. 

Lucifer  of  Cagliari,  278,  434. 

Luke,  52,  1 7 1- 1 74. 

Luke's  *'  many  Gospels,"  54. 

Luke  and  Theophilus,  311. 

Luther,  288,  289. 

Lyons,  142-145,  148,  184,  43] 


M 


Macarius  I.  of  Jerusalem,  433. 

Macarius  Magnes,  254,  433. 

McClellan,  John  Brown,  462. 

Macedonius,  434. 

Mace,  Daniel  (William?),  446. 

Mac  Regol,  Gospels  of,  415. 

Mai,  Cardinal  Angelo,  346. 

Makarius,  a  monk,  367. 

Malchion,  233. 

Malotros,  Nicholas,  391. 

"  Man  to  Men,"  133,   136,  137,  213- 

216,  264,  278. 
Manetho,  21. 
Manucci,  Aldo,  439. 
Manuscripts,    Large    Letter    Greek, 
329-369. 
Small    Letter    Greek, 

370-383. 
Marcellus  of  Ancyra,  434. 
Marcion,  81,  82,  116,  125,  129,  131- 

133,  150,  I5I>  180,  431. 
Marcosians,  166,  212,  431. 
Marcus  Aurelius,  142. 
Marcus,  Diadochus,  433. 


Marcus,  a  monk,  433. 

Mark,  130,  170. 

Mark,  Gospel  of,  52,  3 1 1. 

Mark  the  Valentinian,  166. 

Masbotheus,  116. 

Maternus,  436. 

Mathias,  Gospel  of,  252. 

Matthai,    Christian    Friedrich,    367, 

450.  451- 
Matthew's  Aramaic  book,  52. 
Matthew,  Gospel  according  to,  130, 

161-169. 
Maximinus,  436. 
Maximus  of  Alexandria,  233. 
Meletius  of  Antioch,  433. 
Melito  of  Sardes,  105-107,  115,  431. 
"  Memoirs"  of  Justin  Martyr,  90-94. 
Menander,  68,  69,  116. 
Merinthus,  250. 
Methodius,  418,  431. 
Michael  Palaeologus,  Emperor,  373. 
Middle  Egyptian  translation,  405. 
Mill,  John,  445,  446. 
Miltiades,  133. 


INDEX 


535 


Minuscle,  370. 

Modern  text,  oneness  of,  526-528. 

Modestus,  115. 

Momnisen,  Theodor,  271. 

Montanus,  Benedict  Arius,  442. 

Montfaucon,  Bernard  de,  364. 


Moses  Marden,  401. 

Mountain,  the  Holy,  360. 

Muiioz,  Antonio,  362. 

Muratorian  Fragment,  129-133,  184, 

200. 
Musanus,  115. 


N 


Naassenes,  69,  43 1. 

Narcissus,  158. 

Nazarenes,  250. 

Nestle,  Eberhard,  464. 

Newton,  B.  W.,  460. 

New  Year  in  Lesson  Books,  386. 

Nice,  Council  of,  262. 


Nicephorus,  239,  240,  251. 
Nicholas,  Cardinal,  412. 
Nicodemus,  Gospel  of,  252. 
Nicomedians,  134. 
Novatian,  432. 
Novatus,  17. 
Nowack,  Rosina,  160. 


Oasitic  translation,  405. 

Official  Text,  500,  501. 

Old  Latin,  156,  157,  407,  431. 

Old  Syriac,  156,  157. 

Omont,  Henri,  368. 

Oneness  of  modern  text,  526-528. 

Onesimus,  105. 

Ophites,  69,  163,  171,  175-177,  192, 

193.  195,  201-203,  211. 
Optatus  of  Milevis,  279,  435. 


Order  of  books,  467. 

Origen,  17,  224-227,  243,  427,  431. 

Age  of,  218-255. 
Origin  of  Classes  of  Text,  481,  502, 

503  • 
Original  Text,  483-485. 
Originals  of  New  Testament  books, 

315- 
Orsiesis,  433. 


Pacianus,  279,  435. 

I'alladius  of  Helenopolis,  280. 

Palmas  m  Pontus,  134. 

Pamphilus,  256,  433. 

Pantaenus,  219. 

Paper,  papyrus,  301,  302. 

Papias,  97-102,  168,  182,  189,  431. 

Papyrus,  299. 

Parchment,  317. 

Parchment  in  the  East,  333,  334. 

Paris  polyglot,  443. 

Parmenianus,  435. 

Passages  of  Interest,  508-526. 

Passion  Gospels,  391. 

Paul's  Epistles,  132,  191,  192. 

I'aul  of  Samosata,  233,  431. 

Paulinus,  Pontius,  Meropius,  434. 

Payment  for  copying  books,  318,  319. 

Pens,  reed,  300. 

Penkalla,  Frau,  160. 

Peratge,  177,  196,  207,  431. 


Pergamon,  309. 
Periods,  14,  15. 
Perpetua,  Acts  of,  431. 
Peshitta,  400,  401. 
Peter  and  Mark,  72,  73. 
Peter,  P'irst,  187-189. 
Peter,  Gospel,  Teaching,  Acts,  Reve- 
lation of,  252-254. 
Peter  of  Alexandria,  432. 
Petrocius,  St.,  415. 
Philastrius,  435. 
Phileas,  433. 
Philemon,  210. 
Philip  of  Crete,  115,  134. 
Philippians,  205,  206. 
Philo,  16,  (>■]. 
Philoxenus,  402. 
Phcebadius,\     ^ 
Phoegadius,/ ^^  ' 
Phoenix,  46. 
Photius,  221. 


536 


INDEX 


Phrygia,  143,  144. 

Pierius,  256. 

Pillar  in  Forum,  28. 

Pinytus   of  Cnossos,   III,   1 1 5,   134, 

135- 

Pistis  Sophia,  432. 
Plantin,  Christoph,  443. 
Polished  Text,  491-494. 
Polycarp,  73-75»  HS-^S,  184,  188, 
196,  201,  205,  206,  208,  209,  245, 

431- 
Polycarp  the  reviser  of  Syrian  text, 

402. 
Polycleitos,  15. 
Polycrates,  17,  431. 
Polyglot,  Antwerp,  442. 

Complutensian,  439,  440. 


Polyglot,  London,  443, 

Paris,  443. 
Porfiri  Uspenski,  381. 
Porphyrins,  431. 
Post-Apostolic  Age,  55-110. 
Potheinos,  a  martyr,  144,  145. 
Presbyters  in  Irenaeus,  102-105. 
Primus  of  Corinth,  115,  134. 
Printed  Editions,  437-466. 
Priscilla  and  Aquila,  30. 
Priscillian,  435,  509. 
Prochorus,  312,  313,  381. 
Pseudo-Clement,  85. 
Ptolemceus,  80,  165,  430. 
Punctuation,  475. 
Puplius  of  Athens,  134. 


Quadratus  of  Athens,  134. 
Quaritch,  379. 


Quotations  sought,  2)7 y  60-62. 


Rastislav,  418. 

Reading   in    church,   39,   50,    56-59, 

136,  212-216,  235,  236,  292,  303, 

304,  384-393- 
Rebaptizing,  435. 
Received  Text,  443,  444,  501. 
Rechab,  114. 
Reformation,  canon  at  time  of,  288- 

290. 
Rettig,  H.  C.  M.,  359. 
Reuss,  Eduard,  450. 
Revelation,  411,  212,  229. 


Revision,  First  Syrian,  494,  496. 

Second  Syrian,  500. 
Re-Wrought  Text,  486-491,  502,  503. 
Rigveda,  21. 
Roads,  29. 

Robinson,  J.  Armitage,  368. 
Rbder,  Johann  Leonhard,  160. 
Roger  Bacon,  412. 
Romans,  192-195. 

15th  and  i6th  chapters,  319, 
320. 
Rome's  bounty  to  other  Churches,  136. 


Sabbath     is      Saturday,     303,     387, 

388._ 
Sabellius,  252. 

Saidic  translation,  404,  405,  430. 
Sanday,  William,  413. 
Santes  Pagnini,  474. 
Sarumsachly,  354. 
Satornilians,  116. 
Satorninus,  125. 
Saybrook,  161. 

Schmidt,  Andreas  Nicolaievitch,  160. 
Schmiedel,  Paul  Wilhelm,  464. 


Scholz,  Johannes  Martin  Augustinus, 

378,  451,  452. 
Schopenhauer,  41. 
Schulz,  David,  456. 
Schurig,  orderly  sergeant,  161. 
Scribes,  23. 
Scrivener,  Frederick  Henry  Ambrose, 

352,  461,  462. 
Seleucus,  21. 

Semler,  Johann  Salomo,  44S. 
Serapion,  433. 
Serbopulos,  John,  373,  374. 


INDEX 


537 


Sergio,  Cajetano,  347. 

Sethians,  164,  177,  205. 

Seven  churches  of  Asia  near  together, 

309- 
Seven    disputed    books,    219,    235, 

256. 
Severus  of  Antioch,  356. 
Severus,  a  heretic,  125,  126. 
Shepherd  of  Hernias,  82. 
Shipping,  28. 
Sibylline  books,  21. 
Sides  of  parchment,  323. 
Simeon,  son  of  Clopas,  120,  159. 
Simon  Magus,  67,  68,  116,  163,  175, 

195- 
Simonin,  350. 
Sinai,  monks  of,  332,  333. 
Sinaiticus,  Codex,  329-340,  458,  459. 

age  of,  338. 

payment  for,  332. 

text  of,  337. 
Siricius,  435. 
Sixtus,  Pope,  412,  413. 
Slavic  translation,  407,  418. 
Smyrna,  309. 
Snake  worshippers,  69. 


Society,  British   and  Foreign  Bible, 

361,  464. 
Soden,  Hermann  von,  465. 
Soter  of  Rome,  134,  136,  236,  237. 
Sparwenfeldt,     Johannes     Gabriele, 

417. 
Speculum,  410. 
Spelling,  476. 

Stephen  11.  Harding  of  Citeaux,  412, 
Stilicho,  22. 
Stosch,  365. 
Streane,  A.  W.,  460. 
Stunica,  440. 

Subsaidic  translation,  405. 
Swiss  Declaration  of  Faith,  1675,  290. 
Synod  of  Ancyra  of  315,  18. 

Antioch  of  266,  17. 

Antioch  of  269,  233. 

Laodicea  of  363,   19,  265- 
267. 
Syria,  155. 

Syriac,  Old,  156,  157. 
Syrian  Church,  291. 
Syrian  Revision,  First,  494,  496. 

Second,  500. 
Syrian  translations,  376-403. 


Tacitus,  46. 
Talmud,  22. 
Tank'a  Wald,  406. 
Taricheae,  the  Pickelries,  31. 
Tatian,  123-129,    169,  183,  199,  399, 

400,  425,  426,  430. 
Teaching  of  Apostles,  75,  430. 
Tertius,  300,  302. 
Tertullian,  222-224,  242,    243,  431, 

432. 
Tesfa  Zion,  406. 
Testament,  New,  467. 
Text,  Official,  500,  501. 

Original,  483-485- 

Polished,  491-494. 

Re- Wrought,  486-491. 
Textus  Receptus,  443,  444,  501. 
Thalassius  in  Libya,  433. 
Thebouthis,  116. 
Thecla,  St.,  341. 
Theodore  Hagiopetritis,  375. 
Theodore  of  Heraclea,  434. 
Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  281. 

Age  of,  273-295. 


I  Theodoret  of  Cyrus,  127,281. 
Theodosius  of  Philadelphia,  265. 
Theodosius,  a  scribe,  373,  374. 
Theodotus,  188,   194,  197,  198,  204- 

206,  431. 
Theodulf  of  Orleans,  412,  416. 
Theodulos,  a  monk,  354. 
Theognostus,  432. 
Theoktistus,  a  monk,  381. 
Theonas,  355,  379. 
Theophilus  of  Alexandria,  433. 
Theophilus  of  Antioch,  in,  13S-142, 

169,  174,  183,   189,   195,  200,  205, 

206,  208,  210,  211,  430. 
Theophilus  of  Cffisarea,  157,  158. 
Theophylact  of  Bulgaria,  3S0. 
Thessalonians,  208. 
Thomas,  Gospel  of,  252,  264. 
Thomas  of  Heraclea,  402. 
Thompson,    Sir     Edward     Maunde, 

361, 
Thoth,  21. 
Thyatira,  309. 
Tichonius,  435. 


538 


INDEX 


Timothy,  First  and  Second,  209. 
Timothy  of  Alexandria,  433. 
Tischendorf,  329-340,  345^  34^,  349, 

350,  455-459. 
Titus,  209,  210. 
Titus  of  Bostra,  432. 
Tradition,      possibilities      of,       159- 

162. 
Trajan,  120. 
Translations,  394-418. 

Arabic,  407. 

Armenian,  406,  407. 

Coptic,  403-405. 

Ethiopic,  405,  406. 

Georgian,  407. 


Translation,  Gothic,  407. 

Latin,  407-417. 

Persian,  407. 

Slavic,  407. 

Syrian,  396-403. 
Travellers  of  old,  30. 
Tregelles,     Samuel     Prideaux,     346, 

460,  461. 
Trent,  Council  of,  289,  412,  440. 
Tribal  archives  in  Israel,  23. 
True    Word,    the,    of    Celsus,    145, 

146. 
Trypho  the  Jew,  87. 
Twelve- Apostle  cities,  321. 
Tychonius,  435. 


Ulfila,  355. 


j  Ussher,  James,  443, 


Valentinian  Gospels,  80. 
Valentinus,  79,   116,    125,   133,   152, 

153,  165,  166,   179,   193,  196,  197, 

204,  430,  431. 
Valuation  of  books,  38. 
Vaticanus,  Codex,  343-348. 
Vercellone,  Carlo,  347. 
Vergece,  Angelo,  377. 
Verses,  474. 


Vespasian,  114. 
Victor  of  Capua,  414. 

Rome,  147,  431. 
Victorinus,  432,  435. 
Vienne   and    Lyons,    142-145, 

184,  431. 
Voss,  Isaac,  418. 
Vowel  points  inspired,  290, 
Vulgarius,  380. 


148, 


W 


Walker,  John,  446. 

Walton,  Brian,  443. 

W^aterloo  officers,  160. 

Weger,  Friedrich,  159,  160. 

Weiss,  Bernhard,  463,  464. 

Wellemeyer,  Hermann,  160. 

Wells,  Edward,  446. 

Werden  in  Westphalia,  418. 

Westcott,  Brooke  Foss,  the  author  of 
the  best  book  ever  written  on  the 
canon,  462,  463,  483,  489,  493, 
505,  506,  507,  527,  528. 

[Western]  text,  489. 

Westminster  Assembly  1645,  260. 

Wettstein,  Johann  Jakob,  447,  448. 


White,  Henry  Julian,  413. 
Wickham,  Joseph  Dresser,  161. 
Widmanstadt,  Johann  Albert,  401. 
Wittingham,  William,  475. 
Woide,  Karl  Gottlieb,  343. 
Wolf,  Johann  Christoph,  353. 
Word,  the  True,  of  Celsus,  145,  146. 
Word  less  than  life,  44. 
Wordsworth,  John,  413. 
Writers,  Church,  419-436. 
Writing,  large,  314,  370,  371. 

small,  370,  371. 

running,  314. 
Wulfila,  355. 


INDEX  539 

X 

Xenaia,  402.  |   Ximenes,  Cardinal,  439. 


Yale  College,  161. 


Z 


Za-selase,  406.  j  Zeno  of  Verona,  279,  435. 

Zarathustra,  22. 


The  International  Theological  Library 


A  History  of  the  Reformation 

1.    THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 
II.    THE  REFORMATION  IN  LANDS  BEYOND  GERMANY 

By  THOMAS  M.  LINDSAY,  M.A.,  D.D. 

Principal  of  the  United  Free  Church  College,  Glasgow 


Crown  8vo,  544  pages,  2  vols.    Each  $2.50  net  (postage  21  cents) 


"This  volume  is  marked  by  high  scholarship  and  considerate  frankness 
in  the  treatment  of  debatable  questions." — The  Universalist  Leader. 

"The  arrangement  of  the  book  is  most  excellent,  and  while  it  is  a  worthy 
and  scholarly  account  it  is  so  arranged  that  for  the  student  of  the  Reforma- 
tion it  is  almost  encyclopaedic  in  its  convenience  and  conciseness.  It  is  a 
book  no  library,  public  or  private,  can  really  be  without." — Record  of  Chris- 
tian Work. 

"No  previous  history,  we  believe,  has  given  so  full  and  graphic  a  por- 
traiture of  the  intellectual,  social  and  religious  life  of  the  age  which  gave 
birth  to  the  Reformation,  or  exhibited  so  clearly  the  intimate  connection 
of  the  evangelical  revival  under  Luther  with  the  family  religion  present  and 
taught  in  German  homes  from  medieval  times." — The  Christian  Intelligencer. 

"The  book,  as  a  whole,  is  one  of  rare  value.  It  is  full  of  pictures  as  vivid 
as  if  they  were  drawn  from  life.  In  a  sense  they  were,  for  Dr.  Lindsay  has 
succeeded  in  thinking  himself  into  the  life  and  point  of  view  of  the  era  of 
which  he  writes,  to  a  remarkable  degree.  The  reader  who  completes  this 
intensely  interesting  volume,  will  look  forward  eagerly  to  the  next." — 
Christian  World. 

"The  good  balance  of  material,  which  Principal  Lindsay  has  attained  by 
a  self-denying  exclusion,  as  well  as  by  much  research  and  inclusion  of  fresh 
material,  makes  the  work  a  real  addition  to  our  materials  for  study." — The 
Congregationa  list . 

"Every  intelligent  layman  can  enjoy  the  book  thoroughly,  while  its  foot- 
notes and  bibliographies  give  it  interest  and  value  for  the  special  student." — ■ 
New  York  Observer. 


The  International  Theological  Library 


Theology  of  the  New  Testament 

By  GEORGE  B.  STEVENS,  D.D.,  LL.D. 

Professor  of  Systematic  Theology,  Yale  University 


Crown  8vo,  638  pages.    $2.50  net 


"In  style  it  is  rarely  clear,  simple,  and  strong,  adapted  alike  to  the  gen- 
eral reader  and  the  theological  student.  The  former  class  will  find  it  read- 
able and  interesting  to  an  unusual  degree,  while  the  student  will  value  its 
thorough  scholarship  and  completeness  of  treatment.  His  work  has  a  sim- 
plicity, beauty,  and  freshness  that  add  greatly  to  its  scholarly  excellence  and 
worth." — Christian  A dvocate. 

"It  is  a  fine  example  of  painstaking,  discriminating,  impartial  research 
and  statement." — The  Congregationalist. 

"It  will  certainly  take  its  place,  after  careful  reading,  as  a  valuable 
synopsis,  neither  bare  nor  over-elaborate,  to  which  recourse  will  be  had  by 
the  student  or  teacher  who  requires  within  moderate  compass  the  gist  of 
modern  research." — The  Literary  World. 


The  Ancient  Catholic  Church 

From  the  Accession  of  Trajan  to  the  Fourth 
General  Council  (A.  D.  98-451) 

By  ROBERT  RAINY,  D.D. 

Principal  of  the  New  College,  Edinburgh 


Crown  8vo,  554  pages.    $2.50  net 


"This  is  verily  and  indeed  a  book  to  thank  God  for;  and  if  anybody  has 
been  despairing  of  a  restoration  of  true  cathoUc  unity  in  God's  good  time,  it 
is  a  book  to  fill  him  with  hope  and  confidence." — The  Church  Standard. 

"Principal  Rainy  has  written  a  fascinating  book.  He  has  the  gifts  of  an 
historian  and  an  expositor.  His  fresh  presentation  of  so  intricate  and  time- 
worn  a  subject  as  Gnosticism  grips  and  holds  the  attention  from  first  to  last. 
FamiHarity  with  most  of  the  subjects  which  fall  to  be  treated  within  these 
limits  of  Christian  history  had  bred  a  fancy  that  we  might  safely  and  profit- 
ably skip  some  of  the  chapters,  but  we  found  ourselves  returning  to  close  up 
the  gaps;  we  should  advise  those  who  are  led  to  read  the  book  through  this 
notice  not  to  repeat  our  experiment.  It  is  a  dish  of  well-cooked  and  well- 
seasoned  meat,  savory  and  rich,  with  abundance  of  gravy;  and,  while  no 
one  wishes  to  be  a  glutton,  he  will  miss  something  nutritious  if  he  does  not 
take  time  to  consume  it  all." — Methodist  Review. 


The  International  Theological  Library 

History  of  Christian  Doctrine 

By  GEORGE  P.  FISHER,  D.D.,  LL.D. 

Titus  Street  Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History  in  Yale  University 


Crown  8vo,  583  pages.    $2.50  net 


"Intrinsically  this  volume  is  worthy  of  a  foremost  place  in  our  modern 
literature.  .  .  .  We  have  no  work  on  the  subject  in  English  equal  to  it,  for 
variety  and  range,  clearness  of  statement,  judicious  guidance,  and  catholicity 
of  tone." — London  Nonconformist  and  Independent. 

"It  is  only  just  to  say  that  Dr.  Fisher  has  produced  the  best  History  of 
Doctrine  that  we  have  in  English." — The  New  York  Evangelist. 

"It  meets  the  severest  standard;  there  is  fullness  of  knowledge,  thorough 
research,  keenly  analytic  thought,  and  rarest  enrichment  for  a  positive, 
profound  and  learned  critic.  There  is  interpretative  and  revealing  sympathy. 
It  is  of  the  class  of  works  that  mark  epochs  in  their  several  departments." — 
The  Outlook. 

Christian  Institutions 

By  ALEXANDER   V.  G.  ALLEN.  D.D. 

Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History  in  the  Episcopal  Theological  School  in 

Cambridge 


Crown  8vo,  577  pages.    $2.50  net 


"Professor  Allen's  Christian  Institutions  may  be  regarded  as  the  most 
important  permanent  contribution  which  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
of  the  United  States  has  yet  made  to  general  theological  thought." — The 
American  Journal  of  Theology. 

"It  is  an  honor  to  American  scholarship,  and  wall  be  read  by  all  who 
wish  to  be  abreast  of  the  age." — The  Lutheran  Church  Review. 

"It  is  a  treasury  of  expert  knowledge,  arranged  in  an  orderly  and  lucid 
manner,  and  more  than  ordinarily  readable.  ...  It  is  controlled  by  the 
candid  and  critical  spirit  of  the  careful  historian  who,  of  course,  has  his 
convictions  and  preferences,  but  who  makes  no  claims  in  their  behalf  which 
the  facts  do  not  seem  to  warrant." — The  Congregationalist. 

"He  writes  in  a  charming  style,  and  has  collected  a  vast  amount  of  im- 
portant material  pertaining  to  his  subject  which  can  be  found  in  no  other 
work  in  so  compact  a  form." — The  New  York  Observer. 


The  International  Theological  Library 

Apologetics 

Or,  Christianity  Defensively  Stated 
By  ALEXANDER  BALMAIN  BRUCE,  D.D. 

Professor  of  Apologetics  and  New  Testament  Exegesis,  Free  Church  College, 
Glasgow;  Author  of  "The  Training  of  the  Twelve,"  "The  Humilia- 
tion of  Christ,"  "The  Kingdom  of  God,"  etc. 


Crown  8vo,  528  pages.    $2.50  net 


"The  book  is  well-nigh  indispensable  to  those  who  propose  to  keep 
abreast  of  the  times." — Western  Christian  Advocate. 

"In  a  word,  he  tells  precisely  what  all  intelligent  persons  wish  to  know, 
and  tells  it  in  a  clear,  fresh  and  convincing  manner.  Scarcely  anyone  has 
so  successfully  rendered  the  service  of  showing  what  the  result  of  the  higher 
criticism  is  for  the  proper  understanding  of  the  history  and  religion  of 
Israel." — Andover  Review. 

"We  have  not  for  a  long  time  taken  a  book  in  hand  that  is  more  stimulating 
to  faith.  .  .  .  Without  commenting  further,  we  repeat  that  this  volume  is 
the  ablest,  most  scholarly,  most  advanced,  and  sharpest  defence  of  Chris- 
tianity that  has  ever  been  written.  No  theological  library  should  be  with- 
out it." — Zion^s  Herald. 


Christian  Ethics 

By  NEWMAN   SMYTH,  D.D.,  New  Haven 
Crown  8vo,  508  pages.    $2.50  net 


"As  this  book  is  the  latest,  so  it  is  the  fullest  and  most  attractive  treat- 
ment of  the  subject  that  we  are  familiar  with.  Patient  and  exhaustive  in 
its  method  of  inquiry,  and  stimulating  and  suggestive  in  the  topic  it  handles, 
we  are  confident  that  it  will  be  a  help  to  the  task  of  the  moral  understanding 
and  interpretation  of  human  life." — The  Living  Church. 

"This  book  of  Dr.  Newman  Smyth  is  of  extraordinar}^  interest  and  value. 
It  is  an  honor  to  American  scholarship  and  American  Christian  thinking. 
It  is  a  work  which  has  been  wrought  out  with  remarkable  grasp  of  con- 
ception, and  power  of  just  analysis,  fullness  of  information,  richness  of 
thought,  and  affluence  of  apt  and  luminous  illustration.  Its  style  is  singu- 
larly clear,  simple,  facile,  and  strong.  Too  much  gratification  can  hardly 
be  expressed  at  the  way  the  author  lifts  the  whole  subject  of  ethics  up  out 
of  the  slough  of  mere  naturalism  into  its  own  place,  where  it  is  seen  to  be 
ilhmiined  by  the  Christian  revelation  and  vision." — The  Advance. 


The  International  Theological  Library 


The  Theology  of  the  Old  Testament 

By  A.  B.   DAVIDSON,   D.D.,  LL.D.,  D.Litt. 

Professor  of  Hebrew  and  Old  Testament  Exegesis,  New  College,  Edinburgh 
EDITED  FROM  THE  AUTHOR'S  MANUSCRIPTS 

By  5.  D.  F.  5ALM0ND,  D.D.,  F.E.1.5. 

Principal  of  the  United  Free  Church  College,  Aberdeen 


Crown  8vo,  568  pages.     $2.50  net 


"We  hope  ever}'  clergyman  will  not  rest  content  till  he  has  procured  and 
studied  this  most  admirable  and  useful  book.  Every  really  useful  question 
relating  to  man — his  nature,  his  fall,  and  his  redemption,  his  present  life  of 
grace,  his  life  after  death,  his  future  Hfe — is  treated  of.  We  may  add  that  the 
most  conservatively  inclined  believer  in  the  Old  Testament  will  find  nothing 
in  this  book  to  startle  him.,  while,  at  the  same  time,  the  book  is  fully  cogni- 
zant of  the  altered  \iews  regarding  the  ancient  Scriptures.  The  tone  is 
reverent  throughout,  and  no  one  who  reads  attentively  can  fail  to  derive  fresh 
light  and  benefit  from  the  exposition  here  given." — The  Canadian  Church- 
man. 

"We  commend  this  book  with  a  special  prayer,  believing  that  it  will  make 
the  Old  Testament  a  richer  book;  and  make  the  foundation  upon  which  the 
teachings  of  the  New  Testament  stand  more  secure  to  every  one  who  reads 
it." — The  Heidelberg  Teacher. 


A   HISTORY  OF 

Christianity  in  the   Apostolic  Age 

By  ARTHUR  CUSHMAN  McGIFFERT,   Ph.D.,  D.D. 

Washburn  Professor  of  Church  Historv'  in  the  Union  Theological  Seminar}', 

New  York 


Crown  8vo,  681  pages.     $3.50  net 


"There  can  be  no  doubt  that  this  is  a  remarkable  work,  both  on  account 
of  the  thoroughness  of  its  criticism  and  the  boldness  of  its  views." — The 
Scotsman. 

"Dr.  McGiffert  has  produced  an  able,  scholarly,  suggestive,  and  con- 
.structive  work.  He  is  in  thorough  and  easy  possession  of  his  sources  and 
materials,  so  that  his  positive  construction  is  seldom  interrupted  by  citations, 
the  demolition  of  opposing  views,  or  the  irrelevant  discussion  of  subordinate 
questions." — The  Methodist  Review. 

"The  clearness,  self -consistency,  and  force  of  the  whole  impression  of 
Apostolic  Christianity  with  which  we  leave  this  book,  goes  far  to  guarantee 
its  permanent  value  and  success." — The  Expositor. 


The  International  Theological  Library 

AN  INTRODUCTION  TO 

The  Literature  of  the  Old  Testament 

By  Prof.  5.  R.  DRIVER,  D.D.,  D.Litt. 

Canon  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford 
New  Edition  Revised 


Crown  8vo,  558  pages.    $2.50  net 


"His  judgment  is  singularly  fair,  calm,  unbiassed,  and  independent.  It 
Is  also  thoroughly  reverential.  .  .  .  The  service,  which  his  book  will  render 
in  the  present  confusion  of  "mind  on  this  great  subject,  can  scarcely  be  over- 
estimated."— The  London  Times. 

"...  Canon  Driver's  book  is  ^  characterized  throughout  by  thorough 
Christian  scholarship,  faithful  research,  caution  in  the  expression  of  mere 
opinions,  candor  in  the  statement  of  facts  and  of  the  necessary  inferences 
from  them,  and  the  devout  recognition  of  the  divine  in  working  in  the  religious 
life  of  the  Hebrews,  and  of  the  tokens  of  divine  inspiration  in  the  literature 
which  records  and  embodies  it." — Dr.  A.  P.  Peabody,  in  the  Cambridge 
Tribune. 


Old  Testament  History 

By  HENRY  PRESERVED  SHITH,  D.D. 

Professor  of  Biblical  History  and  Interpretation,  Amherst  College 


Crown  8vo,  538  pages.    $2.50  net 


"Professor  Smith  has,  by  his  comprehensive  and  vitalized  history,  laid 
all  who  care  for  the  Old  Testament  under  great  obligations." — The  In- 
dependent. 

"The  volume  is  characterized  by  extraordinary  clearness  of  conception 
and  representation,  thorough  scholarly  ability,  and  charm  of  style." — The 
Interior. 

"We  have  a  clear,  interesting,  instructive  account  of  the  growth  of  Israel, 
embodying  a  series  of  careful  judgments  on  the  countless  problems  that  face 
the  man  who  tries  to  understand  the  life  of  that  remarkable  people.  The 
'History'  takes  its  place  worthily  by  the  side  of  Driver's  Introduction. 
The  student  of  to-day  is  to  be  congratulated  on  having  so  valuable  an  ad- 
dition made  to  his  stock  of  tools." — The  Expository  Times. 


The  International  Theological  Library 


The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Salvation 

By  GEORGE  B.  STEVENS.  Ph.D.,  D.D.,  LL.D. 

Dwight  Professor  of  Systematic  Theology  in  Yale  University 


Crown  8vo,  558  pages.     $2.50  net  (postage  22  cents) 


"The  book  is  a  great  work,  whatever  one's  own  dogmatic  opinions  may 
be,  or  however  one  might  wish  to  criticize  some  of  the  j)ositions  taken  by 
Dr.  Stevens.  It  shows  mastery  of  the  subject,  breadth  of  view  combined 
with  the  minutiae  of  scholarship,  that  is  admirable.  It  should  have  a  wide 
reading,  and  it  can  do  much  for  this  transitional  time  of  ours,  when  nothing 
is  more  needed  than  the  reinterpretation  of  the  old  formulas  in  the  life  of 
to-day." — The  Examiner. 

"Professor  Stevens  has  performed  a  task  of  great  importance,  certain 
to  exert  wide  and  helpful  influence  in  settling  the  minds  of  men.  He  has 
treated  the  subject  historically  and  has  given  to  Christ  the  first  place  in 
interpreting  his  own  mission." — Congregationalist  and  Christian  World. 


The  Christian  Pastor  and  the  Working  Church 

By  WASHINGTON   GLADDEN,  D.D.,  LL.D. 

Author  of   "Applied   Christianity,"    "Who  Wrote   the   Bible?"    "Ruling 
Ideas  of  the  Present  Age,"  etc. 


Crown  8vo,  485  pages.    $2.50  net 


"Packed  with  wnsdom  and  instruction  and  a  profound  piety.  ...  It  is 
pithy,  pertinent,  and  judicious  from  cover  to  cover.  .  .  .  An  exceedingly 
comprehensive,  sagacious,  and  suggestive  study  and  application  of  its 
theme." — The  Congregationalist. 

"We  have  here,  for  the  pastor,  the  most  modern  practical  treatise  yet 
published — sagacious,  balanced,  devout,  inspiring." — The  Dial. 

"A  comprehensive,  inspiring,  and  helpful  guide  to  a  busy  pastor.  One 
finds  in  it  a  multitude  of  practical  suggestions  for  the  development  of  the 
spiritual  and  working  life  of  the  Church,  and  the  answer  to  many  problems 
that  are  a  constant  perplexity  to  the  faithful  minister." — The  Christian 
Intelligencer. 


The  International 

Critical  Commentary 

un  the  Holy  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments 


EDITORS'    PREFACE 


THERE  are  now  before  the  public  many  Commentaries, 
written  by  British  and  American  divines,  of  a  popular 
or  homiletical  character.  The  Ca??ibridge  Bible  for 
Schools,  the  Ha?tdbooks  for  Bible  Classes  and  Private  Students, 
The  Speaker' s  Conmientary ,  The  Popular  Commentary  (Schaff), 
The  Expositor  s  Bible,  and  other  similar  series,  have  their 
special  place  and  importance.  But  they  do  not  enter  into  the 
field  of  Critical  Biblical  scholarship  occupied  by  such  series  of 
Commentaries  as  the  Kurzgefasstes  exegetisches  Handbuch  zum 
A.  T.  ;  De  Wette's  Kurzgefasstes  exegetisches  Handbuch  zum 
H.  T ;  Meyer's  Kritisch-exegetischer  Ko?nme?itar ;  Keil  and 
Delitzsch's  Biblischer  Commentar  fiber  das  A.  T;  Lange's 
Theologisch-homiletisches  Bibelwerk ;  Nowack's  Handkommentar 
zum  A.  T.  ;  Holtzmann's  Handkommentar  zujn  N.  T  Several 
of  these  have  been  translated,  edited,  and  in  some  cases  enlarged 
and  adapted,  for  the  English-speaking  public  ;  others  are  in 
process  of  translation.  But  no  corresponding  series  by  British 
or  American  divines  has  hitherto  been  produced.  The  way  has 
been  prepared  by  special  Commentaries  by  Cheyne,  Ellicott, 
Kalisch,  Lightfoot,  Perowne,  Westcott,  and  others ;  and  the 
time  has  come,  in  the  judgment  of  the  projectors  of  this  enter- 
prise, when  it  is  practicable  to  combine  British  and  American 
scholars  in  the  production  of  a  critical,  comprehensive 
Commentary  that  will  be  abreast  of  modern  biblical  scholarship, 
and  in  a  measure  lead  its  van. 


The   International  Critical  Commentary 

Messrs.  Charles  Scribner's  Sons  of  New  York,  and  Messrs. 
T.  &  T.  Clark  of  Edinburgh,  propose  to  publish  such  a  series 
of  Commentaries  on  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  under  the 
editorship  of  Prof.  C.  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  in  America,  and  of 
Prof.  S.  R.  Driver,  D.D.,  for  the  Old  Testament,  and  the 
Rev.  Alfred  Plummer,  D.D.,  for  the  New  Testament,  in 
Great  Britain. 

The  Commentaries  will  be  international  and  inter-confessional, 
and  will  be  free  from  polemical  and  ecclesiastical  bias.  They 
will  be  based  upon  a  thorough  critical  study  of  the  original  texts 
of  the  Bible,  and  upon  critical  methods  of  interpretation.  They 
are  designed  chiefly  for  students  and  clergymen,  and  will  be 
written  in  a  compact  style.  Each  book  will  be  preceded  by  an 
Introduction,  stating  the  results  of  criticism  upon  it,  and  discuss- 
ing impartially  the  questions  still  remaining  open.  The  details 
of  criticism  will  appear  in  their  proper  place  in  the  body  of  the 
Commentary.  Each  section  of  the  Text  will  be  introduced 
with  a  paraphrase,  or  summary  of  contents.  Technical  details 
of  textual  and  philological  criticism  will,  as  a  rule,  be  kept 
distinct  from  matter  of  a  more  general  character ;  and  in  the 
Old  Testament  the  exegetical  notes  will  be  arranged,  as  far  as 
possible,  so  as  to  be  serviceable  to  students  not  acquainted  with 
Hebrew.  The  History  of  Interpretation  of  the  Books  will  be 
dealt  with,  when  necessary,  in  the  Introductions,  with  critical 
notices  of  the  most  important  literature  of  the  subject.  Historical 
and  Archaeological  questions,  as  well  as  questions  of  Biblical 
Theology,  are  included  in  the  plan  of  the  Commentaries,  but 
not  Practical  or  Homiletical  Exegesis.  The  Volumes  will  con- 
stitute a  uniform  series. 


The  International  Critical  Commentary 


ARRANGEMENT  OF  VOLUMES  AND  AUTHORS 

THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

GENESIS.  The  Rev.  John  Skinner,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Old  Testament 
Language  and  Literature,  College  of  Presbyterian  Church  of  England, 
Cambridge,  England. 

EXODUS.  The  Rev.  A.  R.  S.  Kennedy,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Hebrew, 
University  of  Edinburgh. 

LEVITICUS.    J.  F.  Stenning,  M.A.,  Fellow  of  Wadham  College,  Oxford. 

NUM  BERS.  The  Rev.  G.  Buchanan  Gray,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Hebrew, 
Mansfield  College,  Oxford.  \_Now  Ready. 

DEUTERONOMY.  The  Rev.  S.  R.  Driver,  D.D.,  D.Litt.,  Regius  Pro- 
fessor of  Hebrew,  Oxford.  {Now  Ready. 

JOSHUA.  The  Rev.  George  Adam  Smith,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Professor  of 
Hebrew,  United  Free  Church  College,  Glasgow. 

JUDGES.  The  Rev.  George  Moore,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Professor  of  Theol- 
ogy, Harvard  University,  Cambridge,  Mass.  \N<nv  Ready. 

SAMUEL.  The  Rev.  H.  P.  Smith,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Old  Testament 
Literature  and  History  of  Religion,  Meadville,  Pa.  YNow  Ready. 

KINGS.  The  Rev.  Francis  Brown,  D.D.,  D.Litt.,  LL.D.,  Professor 
of  Hebrew  and  Cognate  Languages,  Union  Theological  Seminary,  New 
York  City. 

CHRONICLES.  The  Rev.  Edward  L.  Curtis,  D.D.,  Professor  of 
Hebrew,  Yale  University,  New  Haven,  Conn. 

EZRA  AND  NEHEMIAH.  The  Rev.  L.W.  Batten,  Ph.D.,  D.D.,  Rector 
of  St.  Mark's  Church,  New  York  City,  sometime  Professor  of  Hebrew, 
P.  E.  Divinity  School,  Philadelphia. 

PSALMS.  The  Rev.  Chas.  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  D.Litt.,  Graduate  Pro- 
fessor of  Theological  Encyclopaedia  and  Symbolics,  Union  Theological 
Seminary,  New  York.  [2  vols.    Now  Ready 

PROVERBS.  The  Rev.  C.  H.  Toy,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Prof essor  of  Hebrew. 
Harvard  University,  Cambridge,  Mass,  \_No7u  Ready. 

JOB.  The  Rev.  S.  R.  Driver,  D.D.,  D.Litt.,  Regius  Professor  of  He- 
brew, Oxford. 


The   International  Critical  Commentary 


ISAIAH.  Chaps.  I-XXXIX.  The  Rev.  G.  Buchanan  Gray,  D.D., 
Professor  of  Hebrew,  Mansfield  College,  Oxford. 

ISAIAH.  Chaps.  XL-LXVI.  The  Rev.  S.  R.  Driver,  D.D.,  D.Litt., 
Regius  Professor  of  Hebrew,  Oxford, 

JEREMIAH.  The  Rev.  A.  F.  Kirkpatrick,  D.D.,  Dean  of  Ely,  sometime 
Regius  Professor  of  Hebrew,  Cambridge,  England. 

EZEKIEL.  The  Rev.  G.  A.  Cooke,  M.A.,  sometime  Fellow  Magdalen 
College,  and  the  Rev.  Charles  F.  Burney,  D.Litt.,  Fellow  and  Lecturer 
in  Hebrew,  St.  John's  College,  Oxford. 

DANIEL.  The  Rev.  John  P.  Peters,  Ph.D.,  D.D.,  sometime  Professor 
of  Hebrew,  P.  E.  Divinity  School,  Philadelphia,  now  Rector  of  St. 
Michael's  Church,  New  York  City. 

AMOS  AND  HOSEA.  W.  R.  HARPER,  Ph.D.,  LL.D.,  sometime  Presi- 
dent of  the  University  of  Chicago,  Illinois.  [Ncna  Ready. 

MICAH  TO  HAGGAI.  Prof.  JoHN  P.  SMITH,  University  of  Chicago; 
Prof.  Charles  P.  Fagnani,  D.D.,  Union  Theological  Seminary,  New 
York;  W.  Hayes  Ward,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Editor  of  The  Independent,  New 
York;  Prof.  Julius  A.  Bewer.  Union  Theological  Seminary,  New  York, 
and  Prof.  H.  G.  Mitchell,  D.D.,  Boston  University. 

ZECHARIAH  TO  JONAH.  Prof.  H.  G.  Mitchell,  D.D.,  Prof.  John 
P.  Smith  and  Prof.  J.  A.  Bewer. 

ESTHER.  The  Rev.  L.  B.  Baton,  Ph.D.,  Professor  of  Hebrew,  Hart- 
ford Theological  Seminary. 

ECCLESIASTES.  Prof.  George  A.  Barton,  Ph.D.,  Professor  of  Bibli- 
cal Literature,  Bryn  Mawr  College,  Pa. 

RUTH,  SONG  OF  SONGS  AND  LAMENTATIONS.  Rev.  CHARLES  A. 
Briggs,  D.D.,  D.Litt.,  Professor  of  Theological  Encyclopaedia  and  Sym- 
bolics, Union  Theological  Seminary,  New  York. 


THE   NEW   TESTAMENT 

ST.  MATTHEW.    The  Rev.  WiLLOUGHBY  C.  Allen,  M.A.,   Fellow  and 
Lecturer  in  Theology  and  Hebrew,  Exeter  College,  Oxford.       \No'w  Ready. 

ST.  MARK.    Rev.  E.  P.  Gould,  D.D.,  sometime  Professor  of  New  Testa- 
ment Literature,   P.  E.  Divinity  School,   Philadelphia,  \^Now  Ready. 

ST.  LUKE.    The   Rev.    Alfred   Plummer,   D.D.,   sometime  Master  of 
University  College,  Durham.  ^Nvw  Ready. 


The   International  Critical  Commentary 


ST.  JOHN.  The  Very  Rev.  John  Henry  Bernard,  D.D.,  Dean  of  St. 
Patrick's  and  Lecturer  in  Divinity,  University  of  Dublin. 

HARMONY  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  The  Rev.  William  Sanday,  D.D., 
LL.D.,  Lady  Margaret  Professor  of  Divinity,  Oxford,  ana  the  Rev.  WiL- 
LOUGHBY  C.  Allen,  M.A.,  Fellow  and  Lecturer  in  Divinity  and  Hebrew, 
Exeter  College,  Oxford. 

ACTS.  The  Rev.  C.  H.  Turner,  D.D.,  Fellow  of  Magdalen  College, 
Oxford,  and  the  Rev.  H.  N.  Bate,  M.A.,  Examining  Chaplain  to  the 
Bishop  of  London. 

ROMANS.  The  Rev.  William  Sanday,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Lady  Margaret 
Professor  of  Divinity  and  Canon  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford,  and  the  Rev. 
A.  C.  Headlam,  M.A.,  D.D.,  Principal  of  King's  College,  London. 

[A'(97c  Ready. 

CORINTHIANS.  The  Right  Rev.  Arch.  Robertson,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Lord 
Bishop  of  Exeter,  and  Dawson  Walker,  D.D.,  Theological  Tutor  in  the 
University  of  Durham. 

GALATIANS.  The  Rev.  Ernest  D.  Burton,  D.D.,  Professor  of  New 
Testament  Literature,  University  of  Chicago. 

EPHESIANS  AND  COLOSSIANS.  The  Rev.  T.  K.  Abbott,  B.D., 
D.Litt.,  sometime  Professor  of  Biblical  Greek,  Trinity  College,  Dublin,  now 
Librarian  of  the  same.  yNow  Ready. 

PHILIPPIANS  AND  PHILEMON.  The  Rev.  Marvin  R.  Vincent, 
D.  D.,  Professor  of  Biblical  Literature,  Union  Theological  Seminary,  New 
York  City.  {Now  Ready. 

THESSALONIANS.  The  Rev.  James  E.  Frame,  M.A.,  Professor  of 
Biblical  Theology,  Union  Theological  Seminary,  New  York. 

THE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES.  The  Rev.  Walter  Lock,  D.D.,  Warden 
of  Keble  College  and  Professor  of  Exegesis,  Oxford. 

HEBREWS.  The  Rev.  A.  Nairne,  M.A.,  Professor  of  Hebrew  in  King's 
College,  London. 

ST.  JAMES.  The  Rev.  James  H.  Ropes,  D.D.,  Bussey  Professor  of  New 
Testament  Criticism  in  Harvard  University. 

PETER  AND  JUDE.  The  Rev.  Charles  Bigg,  D.D.,  Regius  Professor 
of  Ecclesiastical  History  and  Canon  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford.   {N'oiu  Ready. 

THE  EPISTLES  OF  ST.  JOHN.  The  Rev.  E.  A.  Brooke,  B.D.,  Fellow 
and  Divinity  Lecturer  in  King's  College,  Cambridge. 

REVELATION.  The  Rev.  Robert  H.  Charles,  M.A.,  D.D.,  Profpssor 
of  Biblical  Greek  in  the  University  of  Dublin. 


The  International  Critical  Commentary 


VOLUMES   NOW   READY- 


Deuteronomy 


By  the  Rev,  S.  R.  DRIVER,  D.D.,  DXitt. 

Regius  Professor  of  Hebrew  and  Canon  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford 


Crown  8vo.    Net,  $3.00 


"It  is  a  pleasure  to  see  at  last  a  rcallv  critical  Old  Testament  commentary 
in  English  upon  a  portion  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  especially  one  of  such 
merit.  This  I  find  superior  to  any  other  Commentary  in  any  language  upon 
Deuteronomy." — Professor  E.  L.  Curtis,  of  Yale  University. 

"This  volume  of  Professor  Driver's  is  marked  by  his  well-known  care  and 
accuracy,  and  it  will  be  a  great  boon  to  every  one  who  wishes  to  acquire  a 
thorough  knowledge,  either  of  the  Hebrew  language,  or  of  the  contents  of 
the  Book  of  Deuteronomy,  and  their  significance  for  the  development  of  Old 
Testament  thought.  The  author  finds  scope  for  displaying  his  well-known 
wide  and  accurate  knowledge,  and  delicate  appreciation  of  the  genius  of  the 
Hebrew  language,  and  his  readers  are  supplied  with  many  carefully  con- 
structed lists  of  words  and  expressions.  He  is  at  his  best  in  the  detailed 
examination  of  the  text." — London  Athcna-utn. 


Numbers 

By  the  Rev.  Q.  BUCHANAN  GRAY,  D.D. 

Professor  of  Hebrew,  Mansfield  College,  Oxford 


Crown  8vo.     Net,  $3.00 


"Most  Bible  readers  have  the  impression  that  'Numbers'  is  a  dull  book 
only  relieved  by  the  brilliancy  of  the  Balaam  chapters  and  some  snatches 
of  old  Hebrew  songs,  but,  as  Prof.  Gray  shows  with  admirable  skill  and 
insight,  its  historical  and  religious  value  is  not  that  which  lies  on  the  surface. 
Prof.  Gray's  Commentary  is  distinguished  by  fine  scholarship  and  sanity 
of  judgment;  it  is  impossible  to  commend  it  too  warmly." — Saturday  Review 
(London). 


The   International  Critical  Commentary 

Judges 

By  Dr.  GEORGE  FOOT  MOORE,  D.D. 

Professor  of  Theology,  Harvard  Iniversity 


Crown  8vo.     Net,  $3.00 


"Professor  Moore  has  more  than  sustained  his  scholarly  reputation  in  this 
work,  which  gives  us  for  the  first  time  in  English  a  commentary  on  Judges 
not  excelled,  if  indeed  equalled,  in  any  language  of  the  world." — Professor 
L.  W.  Batten,  of  P.  E.  Divinity  School,  Philadelphia. 

"Although  a  critical  commentary,  this  work  has  its  practical  uses,  and  by 
its  divisions,  headlines,  etc.,  it  is  admirably  adapted  to  the  wants  of  all 
thoughtful  students  of  the  Scriptures.  Indeed,  with  the  other  books  of  the 
series,  it  is  sure  to  find  its  way  into  the  hands  of  pastors  and  scholarly  lay- 
men."— Portland  Zion's  Herald. 

"Like  its  predecessors,  this  volume  will  be  warmly  welcomed — whilst  to 
those  whose  means  of  securing  up-to-date  information  on  the  subject  of  which 
it  treats  are  limited,  it  is  simply  invaluable." — Edinburgh  Scotsman. 


The  Books  of  Samuel 

By  Rev.  HENRY  PRESERVED  SMITH,  D.D. 

Professor  of  Old  Testament  Literature  and  History  of  Religion, 
Meadville,  Pa. 


Crown  8vo.    Net,  $3.00 


"Professor  Smith's  Commentary  will  for  some  time  be  the  standard  work 
on  Samuel,  and  we  heartily  congratulate  him  on  scholarly  work  so  faith- 
fully accomplished." — The  Athenceum. 

"The  literary  quality  of  the  book  deserves  mention.  We  do  not  usually 
go  to  commentaries  for  models  of  English  style.  But  this  book  has  a  dis- 
tinct, though  unobtrusive,  literary  flavor.  It  is  dehghtful  reading.  The 
translation  is  always  felicitous,  and  often  renders  further  comment  need- 
less."— The  Evangelist. 

"The  author  exhibits  precisely  that  scholarly  attitude  which  will  com- 
mend his  work  to  the  vddest  audience." — The  Churchman. 

"The  commentar}'  is  the  most  complete  and  minute  hitherto  published 
by  an  English-speaking  scholar." — Literature. 


The   International  Critical  Commentary 


The  Book  of  Psalms 

By  CHARLES  AUGUSTUS  BRIGQS,  D.D.,  D.Litt. 

Graduate  Professor  of  Theological  Encyclopaedia  and  Symbolics,  Union 

Theological  Seminary,  New  York 

and 

EMILIE  GRACE  BRIGGS,  B.D. 


a  volumes.    Crown  8vo.    Price,  $3.00  net  each 
Postage  additional 

"  Christian  scliolarship  seems  here  to  have  reached  the  hightest  level  yet 
attained  in  study  of  the  book  which  in  religious  importance  stands  next  to 
the  Gospels.  His  work  upon  it  is  not  likely  to  be  excelled  in  learning,  both 
massive  and  minute,  by  any  volume  of  the  International  Series,  to  which  it 
belongs." — The  Outlook. 

"We  have  in  this  work  what  we  should  expect,  extreme  thoroughness, 
scholarly  precision  and  depth  of  insight." — The  Churchftiati. 

"It  is  scarcely  too  much  to  say  that  we  have  here  in  compact  form  the 
best  available  commentary  upon  the  first  book  of  the  Psalter.  It  is  not 
simply  grammatical  and  lexical,  but  it  embodies  the  best  results  of  the 
author's  study  of  Biblical  theology.  These  serve  to  bring  out  doubly  the 
significance  and  import  of  these  hymns  of  worship  of  ancient  Israel." — The 
Westminster. 


Proverbs 


By  the  Rev.  CRAWFORD  H.  TOY,   D.D.,   LL.D. 

Professor  of  Hebrew  in  Harvard  Universitv 


Crown  8vo.     Net,  $3.00 


"Professor  Toy's  commentary  on  Proverbs  maintains  the  highest  standard 
of  the  International  Critical  Commentaries.  We  can  give  no  higher  praise. 
Proverbs  presents  comparatively  few  problems  in  criticism,  but  offers  large 
opportunities  to  the  expositor  and  exegete.  Professor  Toy's  work  is 
thorough  and  complete." — The  Congregationalist. 

"A  first-class,  up-to-date,  critical  and  exegetical  commentary  on  the  Book 
of  Proverbs  in  the  English  language  was  one  of  the  crying  needs  of  Biblical 
scholarship.  Accordingly,  we  may  not  be  yielding  to  the  latest  addition  to 
the  International  Critical  Series  the  tribute  it  deserves,  when  we  say  that  it 
at  once  takes  the  first  place  in  its  class.  That  place  it  undoubtedly  deserves, 
however,  and  would  have  secured  even  against  much  more  formidable  com- 
petitors than  it  happens  to  have.  It  is  altogether  a  well-arranged,  lucid 
exposition  of  this  unitjuc  book  in  the  Bible,  based  on  a  careful  study  of  the 
text  and  the  linguistic  and  historical  background  of  every  part  of  it." — The 
Interior. 


The  International  Critical  Commentary 


Amos  and  Hosea 

By  WILLIAM   RAINEY  HARPER,  Ph.D.,   LL.D. 

Late  Professor  of  Semitic  Languages  and  Literatures  and  President  of  the 
University  of  Chicago 


Crown  8vo.    Net,  $3.00 


"1  shall  have  pleasure  in  recommending  it  to  all  students  in  our  Seminary. 
This  book  fills,  in  the  most  favorable  manner,  a  long-felt  want  for  a  good 
critical  commentary  on  two  of  the  most  interesting  books  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment."—Rev.  Lewis  B.  Paton,  Ph.D.,  Professor  of  Hebrew,  Hartford 
Theological  Seminary. 

"He  has  gone,  with  characteristic  minuteness,  not  only  into  the  analysis 
and  discussion  of  each  point,  endeavoring  in  every  case  to  be  thoroughly 
exhaustive,  but  also  into  the  history  of  exegesis  and  discussion.  Nothing  at 
all  worthy  of  consideration  has  been  passed  by.  The  consequence  is  that 
when  one  carefully  studies  what  has  been  brought  together  in  this  volume, 
either  upon  some  passage  of  the  two  prophets  treated,  or  upon  some  question 
of  critical  or  antiquarian  importance  in  the  introductory  portion  of  the 
volume,  one  feels  that  he  has  obtained  an  adequately  exhaustive  view  of  the 
subject." — The  Interior. 


St.  Matthew 

By  the  Rev.  WILLOUGHBY  C.  ALLEN,  M.A, 

Fellow  of  Exeter  College,  Oxford 


Crown  8vo.     Net,  $3.00 


"As  a  microscopic  and  practically  exhaustive  study  and  itemized  state- 
ment of  the  probable  or  possible  sources  of  the  vSynoptic  Gospels  and  of 
their  relations,  one  to  another,  this  work  has  not  been  surpassed.  I  doubt 
if  it  has  been  equaled.  And  the  author  is  not  by  any  means  lacking  in 
spiritual  insight." — The  Methodist  Review  (Nashville). 

"This  important  work  exhibits  the  well-known  critical  qualities  of  the 
International  series,  and  should  claim  a  leading  place  among  commentaries 
on  the  First  Gospel.  The  gospel  is  shown  to  owe  its  name  to  the  discourse 
source,  which  together  with  Mark,  entered  into  its  composition  probably 
between  65  and  75  A.D." — Biblical  World. 

"A  work  of  scholarship  and  patience  that  does  honor  to  the  Christian 
church." — Westviintcr. 


The   International  Critical  Commentary 


5t.  Mark 


By  the  Rev.  E.  P.  GOULD,  D.D. 

Late    Professor    of    New    Testament    Exegesis,    P.    E.    Divinity    School, 

Philadelphia 


Crown  8vo.     Net,  $2.50 


"The  whole  make-up  is  that  of  a  thoroughly  helpful,  instructive  critical 
study  of  the  Word,  surpassing  anything  of  the  kind  ever  attempted  in  the 
English  language,  and  to  students  and  clergymen  knowing  the  proper  use  of 
a  commentary  it  will  prove  an  invaluable  aid." — The  Lutheran  Quarterly. 

"Professor  Gould  has  done  his  work  well  and  thoroughly.  .  .  .  The 
commentary  is  an  adm.irable  example  of  the  critical  method  at  its  best.  .  .  . 
The  Word  study  .  .  .  shows  not  only  famiharity  with  all  the  literature  of 
the  subject,  but  patient,  faithful,  and  independent  investigation.  ...  It 
will  rank  among  the  best,  as  it  is  the  latest  commentary  on  this  basal  Gospel.'* 
— The  Christian  Intelligencer. 

"Dr.  Gould's  commentary  on  Mark  is  a  large  success,  .  .  .  and  a  credit 
to  American  scholarship.  .  .  .  He  has  undoubtedly  given  us  a  commentary 
on  Mark  which  surpasses  all  others,  a  thing  we  have  reason  to  expect  will 
be  true  in  the  case  of  every  volume  of  the  series  to  which  it  belongs." — The 
Biblical  World. 


St.  Luke 


By  the  Rev.  ALFRED  PLUMMER,  D.D. 

Sometime  Master  of    University  College,  Durham;  formerly  Fellow 
and  Senior  Tutor  of  Trinity  College,  Oxford 


Crown  8vo.    Net,  $3.00 


"It  is  distinguished  throughout  by  learning,  sobriety  of  judgment,  and 
sound  exegesis.  It  is  a  weighty  contribution  to  the  interpretation  of  the 
Third  Gospel,  and  will  take  an  honorable  place  in  the  series  of  which  it 
forms  a  part." — Prof.  D.  D.  Salmond,  in  the  Critical  Review. 

"We  are  pleased  with  the  thoroughness  and  scientific  accuracy  of  the  in- 
terpretations. ...  It  seems  to  us  that  the  prevailing  characteristic  of  the 
book  is  common  sense,  fortified  by  learning  and  piety." — TJie  Herald  and 
Presbyter. 

"It  is  a  valuable  and  welcome  addition  to  our  somewhat  scanty  stock  of 
first-class  commentaries  on  the  Third  Gospel.  By  its  scholarly  thorough- 
ness it  well  sustains  the  reputation  Avhich  the  International  Series  has 
already  won." — Prof.  J.  H.  Thayer,  of  Harvard  University. 


The   International  Critical  Commentary 


Rom 


ans 

By  the  Rev.  WILLIAM  SANDAY,  D.D.,  LL.D. 

Lady  Margaret  Professor  of  Divinity  and  Canon  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford 

and  the 

Rev.  A.  C.  HEADLAM,  M.A.,  D.D. 

Principal  of  King's  College,  London 


Crown  8vo.     Net,  $3.00 


"We  do  not  hesitate  to  commend  this  as  the  best  commentary  on  Romans 
yet  written  in  English.  It  will  do  much  to  popularize  this  admirable  and 
much  needed  series,  by  showing  that  it  is  possible  to  be  critical  and  scholarly 
and  at  the  same  time  devout  and  spiritual,  and  intelligible  to  plain  Bible 
readers." — TJie  Church  Standard. 

"A  commentary  with  a  very  distinct  character  and  purpose  of  its  own, 
which  brings  to  students  and  ministers  an  aid  which  they  cannot  obtain  else- 
where. .  .  .  There  is  probably  no  other  commentary  in  which  criticism  has 
been  employed  so  successfully  and  impartially  to  bring  out  the  author's 
thought." — N.  Y.  Independent. 

"We  have  nothing  but  heartiest  praise  for  the  weightier  matters  of  the 
commentary.  It  is  not  only  critical,  but  exegetical,  expository,  doctrinal, 
practical,  and  eminently  spiritual.  The  positive  conclusions  of  the  books 
are  very  numerous  and  are  stoutly,  gloriously  evangelical.  .  .  .  The  com- 
mentary does  not  fail  to  speak  with  the  utmost  reverence  of  the  whole  word 
of  God." — The  CongregationaJist. 


Ephesians  and  Colossians 

By  the  Rev.  T.  K.  ABBOTT,  B.D.,  D.Litt. 

Formerly  Professor  of  Biblical   Greek,   now  of  Hebrew,  I'rinity  College, 

Dublin 


Crown  8vo.     Net,  $2.50 


"The  exegesis  based  so  solidly  on  the  rock  foundation  of  philolog}'  is 
argumentatively  and  convincingly  strong.  A  spiritual  and  evangelical  tenor 
pervades  the  interpretation  from  first  to  last.  .  .  .  These  elements,  to- 
gether with  the  author's  full-orbed  vision  of  the  truth,  with  his  discrimina- 
tive judgment  and  his  felicity  of  expression,  make  this  the  peer  of  any  com- 
mentary on  these  important  letters." — The  Standard. 

"An  exceedingly  careful  and  painstaking  piece  of  work.  The  introduc- 
tory discussions  of  questions  bearing  on  the  authenticity  and  integrity  (of 
the  epistles)  are  clear  and  candid,  and  the  exposition  of  the  text  displays  a 
fine  scholarship  and  insight." — North-western  Christian  Advocate. 


The  International  Critical  Commentary 

Philippians  and  Philemon 

By  the  Rev.  MARVIN  R.  VINCENT.  D.D. 

Professor  of  Biblical  Literature  in  Union  Theological  Seminary,  New  York 


Crown  8vo.    Net,  $2.00 


"Of  the  merits  of  the  work  it  is  enough  to  say  that  it  is  worthy  of  its 
place  in  the  noble  undertaking  to  which  it  belongs.  It  is  full  of  just  such 
information  as  the  Bible  student,  lay  or  clerical,  needs;  and  while  giving  an 
abundance  of  the  truths  of  erudition  to  aid  the  critical  student  of  the  text,  it 
abounds  also  in  that  more  popular  information  which  enables  the  attentive 
reader  almost  to  put  himself  in  St.  Paul's  place,  to  see  with  the  eyes  and  feel 
with  the  heart  of  the  Apostle  to  the  Gentiles." — Boston  Advertiser. 

"Throughout  the  work  scholarly  research  is  evident.  It  commends  itself 
by  its  clear  elucidation,  its  keen  exegesis  which  marks  the  word  study  on 
every  page,  its  compactness  of  statement  and  its  simplicity  of  arrangement." 
— Lutheran  World. 


St.  Peter  and  5t.  Jude 

By  the  Rev.  CHARLES  BIGG,  D.D. 

Regius  Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History  in  the  University  of  Oxford 


Crown  8vo.    Net,  $2.50 


"His  commentary  is  very  satisfactory  indeed.  His  notes  are  particularly 
valuable.  We  know  of  no  work  on  these  Epistles  which  is  so  full  and  satis- 
factory."— The  Living  Church. 

"Canon  Bigg's  work  is  pre-eminently  characterized  by  judicial  open- 
mindedness  and  sympathetic  insight  into  historical  conditions.  His  realistic 
interpretation  of  the  relations  of  the  apostles  and  the  circumstances  of  the 
early  church  renders  the  volume  invaluable  to  students  of  these  themes. 
The  exegetical  work  in  the  volume  rests  on  the  broad  basis  of  careful  lin- 
guistic study,  acquaintance  v^dth  apocalyptic  literature  and  the  writings  of 
the  Fathers,  a  sane  judgment,  and  good  sense." — American  Journal  of 
Theology. 


DATE  DUE                         1 

-^^..m^i^^ 

CAYLORD 

